The CA Assembly Appropriations Committee will be hearing the Tiered Registry bill—Senate Bill 421–on August 23.
For many reasons, ACSOL is not planning on attending this hearing and we do not recommend you attend either.
However, all registrants and supporters should call ALL the Assembly Appropriations Committee members at their Sacramento office. Here is a link to the members and their phone numbers:
http://apro.assembly.ca.gov/membersstaff
The deadline for calling is August 22, the day before the hearing.
Tell the staff person that you know the Assembly Member will hear the bill in the Appropriations Committee so you want to comment on Senate Bill 421. Say that you support it, and that you would like the Assembly Member to support it. Even if he or she is not your Assembly Member, mentioning the committee hearing lets them know that this is a situation where your comments have value to them as a committee member.
Please join us and invest a few minutes in working toward our freedom!
Thank you Janice…. For EVERYTHING. I will call.
I’ll be calling.
How do we know what we are supporting? There are multiple rumors of very specific amendments that could change the outcome of this bill for thousands of people. How are we supposed to support something blindly? I think the rug is going to get yanked out from under us here folks.
We call all members regardless of whether the member is from our district right? I often have encountered staff members who want to confirm I am in their district before acknowledging my call.
Here is a government website that will allow you to quickly locate your California state senator, assembly person, and your district.
http://findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov/
I think I agree with Matt. I have a misdemeanor conviction for CP from 2001. I have never been listed on the site. If I do get listed, I will lose my job and my house and probably my wife and kids. I’m going to call and ask them not to support it.
I am very curious about something: Why do you not recommend we attend? Could an organizer answer that?
Is there a reason why we should not go to the committee hearing?
For the folks that are not on the website, be very scared if SB 421 doesn’t pass. There is a bill waiting for next year that will make every person on the web. regardless of crime i.e Child porn…..
“For many reasons, ACSOL is not planning on attending this hearing and we do not recommend you attend either.”
The sort of sentence that needs to be expounded upon.
Thank you, Roger, for your insightful comments.
Matt
No one wants to hear your negativity! I’m still on the registry for an expunged battery with summary probation 20-21 years later! If your not happy, take this time to get your offense expunged or change the laws! Negativity gets you no where! We could still be banned from parks, beaches, libraries and who knows what else. People have lost jobs, families, homes and been killed by the registry. Go start your own website and stop being narcistic! The passage of this Bill will change the lives of many. I’m beginning to wonder if your even on the registry. Guys, stop addressing his or her issues. Let’s focus on being positive!!!!!
Life is like a box of chocolates you never know what you’re gonna get..🤣
For those concerned about supporting unknown language in SB421, there is always:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB421
Complete text of the bill, status and changes.
It’s where I go when I want to know.
Amended version is up as of August 21, 2017 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB421. Everyone this could be the last version.
Some notes, I have read:
It will now start 2021.
Those on tier 3 based solely on Risk will be able to petition to be removed after 20 years.
Those convicted of a felony of 311.1 or 311.11 will be in tier 2.
Tier 3 is those of specific crimes: Section 187 while attempting to commit or committing an act punishable under Section 261, 286, 288, 288a, or 289.
(ii) Section 207 or 209 with intent to violate Section 261, 286, 288, 288a, or 289.
(iii) Subdivision (b) of Section 220.
(iv) Section 269.
(v) Subdivision (b) of Section 288.
(vi) Section 288.7.
risk level is well above average
(E) The person is a habitual sex offender pursuant to Section 667.71.
(F) The person was convicted of violating subdivision (a) of Section 288 in two proceedings brought and tried separately.
(G) The person was sentenced to 15 to 25 years to life for an offense listed in Section 667.61.
(H) The person is required to register pursuant to Section 290.004.
(I) The person was convicted of a felony offense described in subdivision (b) or (c) of Section 236.1.
(J) The person was convicted of violating Section 261 and punished pursuant to paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 264.
(K) The person was convicted of violating subparagraph (B) or (C) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 286.
(L) The person was convicted of violating subparagraph (B) or (C) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 288a.
(M) The person was convicted of violating subparagraph (B) or (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 289.
(N) The person was convicted of violating subdivision (b), (c), or (d) of Section 311.2, Section 311.3, 311.4, or 311.10.
290.006. (a) Any person ordered by any court to register pursuant to the Act for any offense not included specifically in subdivision (c) of Section 290, shall so register, if the court finds at the time of conviction or sentencing that the person committed the offense as a result of sexual compulsion or for purposes of sexual gratification. The court shall state on the record the reasons for its findings and the reasons for requiring registration.
(b) The person shall register as a tier one offender in accordance with paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 290, unless the court finds the person should register as a tier two or tier three offender and states on the record the reasons for its finding.
(c) In determining whether to require the person to register as a tier two or tier three offender, the court shall consider all of the following:
(1) The nature of the registerable offense.
(2) The age and number of victims, and whether any victim was personally unknown to the person at the time of the offense. A victim is personally unknown to the person for purposes of this paragraph if the victim was known to the offender for less than 24 hours.
(3) The criminal and relevant noncriminal behavior of the person before and after conviction for the registerable offense.
(4) Whether the person has previously been arrested for, or convicted of, a sexually motivated offense.
(5) The person’s current risk of sexual or violent reoffense, including the person’s risk level on the SARATSO static risk assessment instrument, and, if available from past supervision for a sexual offense, the person’s risk level on the SARATSO dynamic and violence risk assessment instruments.
(d) This section shall become operative on January 1, 2021.
Those that are in tier 2 may petition to be removed after 10 years (exlusion from internet) not of duty to register if they do not fall under Section 667.5 or 1192.7 (serious offenses or habitual).
If you are in tier 2 after 10 years, you may also apply to get off internet by:
completed probation- “successfully completed probation” means that during the period of probation the offender neither received additional county jail or state prison time for a violation of probation nor was convicted of another offense resulting in a sentence to county jail or state prison.
This is really a gut punch to some.
All it did was put everyone under the same umbrella once again besides a select few. As least its better than lifetime for us, I guess. What is ironic is that they are determining people’s level of reoffending by using Static 99 but once Static 99 doesn’t work, they put them under the same. Its not that great of bill. That 90% of those that will come off the bill under the original bill will be placed in tier 2.
Looks like a fair amount of codes that were going to be tier 1 have now jumped to tier 3. WTH happened? This bill seems nearly worthless now as it seemingly maintenance a life sentence for most.
So now my wobbler conviction of a felony CP conviction I will have to go see if I can get it reduced to a misdemeanor so that I can be in Tier1 is that correct
Many bills specify a date by which a law must be in place, such as ” on or before such and such date”, but this bill states “commencing on” January 2021. So it will take them nearly 3 1/2 years to determine what tier everyone belongs in? I don’t think it took that long for them to launch their shaming website after Megan’s Law passed a decade ago ( unless of course they already had it built and ready to go because they knew it was going to pass)
It looks like they have amended and taken away the 30 yr plus registrants automatic removal from the registry ( unless they wrote it in a different section that I missed)
I made my calls today and have most of my family on the phones as well!!! I’m hoping and praying we still have a chance after wednesday and this goes to the governors desk. Things are only getting worse with this current registry evidenced just by today when I went in for my annual update. The officer that handles all SO’s in my city, whom is extremely nice and helpful by the way, pointed out just how frustrated she is by how registrations, updates, transients etc are handled. Now on TOP of it all, the DOJ has mandated that we undergo fingerprinting with livescan technology, which I did today. That process added an extra 30 minutes of fumbling around with each hand and finger before the computer would recognize an acceptable print. I was frustrated and I can only imagine that law enforcement are doubly so. WE NEED TO GET THIS PASSED AND CHANGE THE SYSTEM!!!! GET ON THE PHONES AND GET AS MANY BODIES ON THEM AS YOU CAN!!!!! LET’S DO THIS!!!!
I think this bill will now have a more difficult time passing. Reason being is that with all these new amendments, it seems like majority of people will be pushed into tier 2 and some, myself included, are seemingly being pushed from a previous tier 1 into tier 3 (I have a 311.4a felony and a 647.6a misdemeanor, will be going in for a 17b and expungement soon).
With so many people now not getting a quicker relief and many more remaining for life, the cost to savings benefit no longer seems like it’ll be there. Between the cost of implementing this “tiered” system (I’m placing into quotes because this is a tiered system mainly on paper and not in practice) and the fact that this won’t reduced the current amount of people by any significant amount, I can see the bean counters not letting it pass.
I just want to know what happened for such a drastic set of amendments?
If anyone calls in to oppose this bill because you do not agree with Janice’s strategy and think you somehow know politics and lawmaking better than her and can see a bigger picture than she can, I personally request that you tell each legislator you are a registered sex offender and that you like the registry the way it is now and that you think this bill is very unfair to sex offenders and that you do not want the legislator to support this bill because it is too tough on sex offenders and should be much friendlier.
😉
As for the rest of us, please don’t mention you are a registrant when you call in to support it.
👍 KEEP IT UP, PEOPLE!!
KEEP IT UP!! 👍
I just made my calls and was told by a staff person that they are receiving A LOT of calls supporting approval of SB-421!
We can win this one!
Make your calls, please! 👍
The Bill as it reads today repeatedly refers to “SARATSO static risk assessment instrument”.
Is that the same as the “Static 99” instrument?