The Appropriations Committee placed SB 421 in its Suspense File. The bill must be released from that file before it can be considered on the floor of the Assembly. The deadline for floor consideration is Sept. 15. If the bill does not get released from the Suspense File in time for consideration on the Assembly floor, it is dead.
— Janice Bellucci
Allow me to add a comment that will seem completely irrelevant—–until you think about it.
Currently I am reading a well-respected book on the philosophy of law: vol. 4 of a four volume series by Joel Feinberg entitled, The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law. This is vol. 4, entitled, Harmless Wrong doing.
I will summarize his point as follows. If you have done something criminal, but no harm has resulted from it—–does a legislature have the right to make that illegal? His point: THEY DO NOT.
I ADD THE FOLLOWING: IN 1969, when engaging in gay acts was ILLEGAL, I did it anyway. It was only made legal in 1975 by the much maligned Willie Brown. Sex by mutual agreement is always ok; violence, especially as practiced by governments, is dubious at best. If you disagree, too bad. I say, mutual respect and mutual agreement are the basis of a good society. Governments practice violence, but I say: in personal relationships, mutual preference and peaceful, harmonious agreement always trump whatever delusional ideas legislatures may harbor or try to inflict on others. The issue is, do we damn them or double damn them. I can’t decide. ATTN. FOOLS: MY PARTNER AND I HAVE BEEN TOGETHER SINCE 1974. And just how long have YOU and YOUR partner been together????
Amazing that states from Pennsylvania to Michigan and in-between are rolling back the numbers on their registries, yet California with the greatest number and growing wants to flirt with this
while I want to clean up many things I have said about backing this bill , a few of you know what my view of us supporting this Bill “WAS” , after much soul searching as well as some research I can see that the bill offers me nothing , but I am reversing what I have said in the passed , please back this Bill , get behind ACSOL to the fullest , I am sorry for not thinking this matter out better , I was truly looking at a small picture , the picture seemed huge to me having the hard ships me and my family have already gone through , and it blinded me to a bigger picture that being the only excuse I have to offer ,other than I have had issues trusting for a good many years , that being said , I was wrong , sure nothing will change over night , but change I “think” will happen that may help everyone , I am sorry for not thinking this out better before pushing against supporting this , in no way did I mean to undermine ACSOL in its efforts , I was just stating my concerns that I was looking at the time , please back ACSOL’s play on this , do your research ,
I wont stress about this until it’s over. remember Lara in the Senate sponsored this bill; he then withdrew his name from it; it then went into the suspension file; was then re-authored and voted out of suspension by none other then Lara.
It seems now we have the same maneuvering going on. I dont know if keeping it off the calendar gives them breathing room or what??? but we wont know once again until the final days so no need to stress over it. Worst case we have our former up hill battles, and fortunately we’ve had a lot of case law established in our favor since this bill was introduced. In the final analysis we are in better shape since the beginning of the year with or without the passage of this bill
I have a theory as to why the bill went into the suspense file. There has long been a legislative practice known as “gut and amend” in which an existing bill, sure to pass, has it’s guts ripped out and new language put in and the bill rushed through in the new form.
In the last state election, a measure was passed that said a bill once amended has to be available for 3 business days after the amendment before a vote or hearing that would result in a vote.
This would explain the suspense file and the hearing set for 9/1
Potentially less deferious that we might think
Let me see if I understand this correctly: If 421 passes, by 2021, all who remain on the registry will be viewed exactly the same as Philip Garrido. The way that they change the view is to spend tens of thousands of dollars to go to court, and ask said court to stop assuming they are Philip Garrido. What could possibly go wrong with this plan? Are you people out of your minds? Serious question. This is profoundly stupid.
I doubt that legislators went through the trouble of drafting these many amendments if it were doomed to failure.
No more committees. If passed out of Appropriations it will be considered by the whole assembly.
Good evening,
Many have asked me about how I found relief from the registry and I thought I would take the time to post about my experience.
First, a little background. In 2006, while living in Los Angeles County, I was charged with two misdemeanors, both of which are related to CP. I would ultimately plead no contest to a single misdemeanor count of 311.11 p.c., with the plea happening in January 2007, and sentencing in April 2007. In May 2010, I was formally released from summary probation, and my charge/case was expunged. I had no criminal history prior to this, and I’ve had none since. From April 2007, until February 2017, I would continue to register in Los Angeles County.
In December 2016, my wife and I decided to make a move to Washington D.C. This move was purely for professional reasons however, after doing some research, I learned that a benefit might be a shot at being relieved of the requirement to register.
Given D.C.’s location, we had three options for residency: D.C., Virginia, or Maryland. Of the three, D.C. offered the best chance for relief, while Maryland was a close second. Virginia was a no-go from the start. Therefore, we made our move to D.C. in February 2017.
D.C. has three numerical tiers: 1, 2, and 3. Tiers 1 and 2 are required to register for 10 years, and Tier 3 is lifetime. The tiers are offense-based, and the law makes two things clear: 1) time spent on another jurisdiction’s registry is tallied for determining the length of time to be spent on D.C.’s registry, and 2) a “conviction” is not considered a “conviction” if the charge/case is expunged, pardoned, etc. Therefore, I had three things going for me: 1) Given my offense, I would be a Tier 2, or a 10-year registrant. 2) I had already spent 9 years and 10 months on California’s registry, and this time would be tallied and credited. 3) I had an expungement which, theoretically, per D.C.’s law, meant that I wouldn’t be required to register at all. I’ll go into the expungement component later.
The above definitions are found in Chapter 40 of D.C. “Code of the District of Columbia”.
22-4001(3)(B): “A person is not deemed to have committed a registration offense for purposes of this chapter, if the disposition described in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph has been reversed or vacated, or if the person has been pardoned for the offense on the grounds of innocence.”
For reference, “subparagraph (A)”, which is referenced above, states: “’Committed a registration offense’ means: (i) was convicted or found not guilty by reason of insanity of a registration offense; or (ii) was determined to be a sexual psychopath under…”.
The above is strikingly similar to the language on my “Order for Dismissal – Penal Code 1203.4, 1203.4a” which was granted in May 2010, which states “It is ordered that the plea, verdict, or finding of guilt in the above-entitled action be set aside and vacated and a plea of not guilty be entered and that the complaint be, and is hereby, dismissed.”
22-4002(a): registration period. States that the period of registration for tiers 1 and 2 begins when released, and continues for 10 years.
22-4002(a)(1): The agency may give a sex offender credit for the time the sex offender was registered in another jurisdiction;
Two days after arriving in D.C., I checked in with the SORNA management unit. This is a dedicated unit based out of police headquarters, and is staffed by officers from the probation department. I will also note that of the various persons I’ve ever had to deal with in Los Angeles County, the SORNA team in D.C. is by far one of the most professional, and helpful groups I’ve come across. The initial process is actually quite simple and, seemingly, the expungement would have no bearing on these initial steps: I completed a short, 1-page document with the usual variety of personal identifiers; provided proof of my D.C. residency; and a photocopy of my driver’s license. I was also asked to provide, via email, a copy of my vehicle registration and, within 30 days, proof of my driver’s license being converted from a California license, to a D.C. license (this is required for all new residents, and is not specific to those persons in our position). The purpose of these initial steps is to allow the SORNA unit to request documents from the court in which I was convicted back in Los Angeles County, so that they can determine my specific offense, and its final resolution, as well as the date of my initial registration. Seemingly, this would also be used to determine my tier level should registration proceed further.
This initial meeting lasted approximately 30 minutes and, once complete, I was told to call in each Monday to “check in”. For the next five and a half months, I would check in each Monday with what literally amounted to a 15 second phone call. No call was more than “Hello, this is Paul, and I am checking in”; “Thank you, and have a nice morning”. That was it.
Plenty of people familiar with my experience have asked me why I never inquired about the status of the investigation, or requested more information. That’s a fair question given that this process lasted five and a half months. But my response is simple: why? For those five and a half months, I was not on any registry! A 15 second phone call once per week seemed like a cheap price to pay for not being on the registry! Why push things along any faster than they needed to be?
Alas, after five and a half months, I received a letter on a Saturday evening. The letter stated that the SORNA unit had determined that I was required to register, and requested that I come into the office the following Tuesday morning. I was shocked! At this point, I’m well past the 10-year registration period; I have my expungement; I was compliant with my registration obligations in California and, thus, my time should have tallied for the entire nine years and 10 months. This made no sense! I immediately contacted my attorney and we decided to exercise D.C.’s appeal process.
In D.C., per 22-4004, you can challenge SORNA’s decision as it relates to their determination of your registration requirement; tier level; etc. BUT, you need to notify the SORNA unit of your intention to challenge their decision on the day of your registration (in my case, Tuesday). Your notification of your intent to challenge their decision places your registration on a 30-day hold, allowing you to file the necessary paperwork with the local court. Per the law, the court then has 60 days to make a decision. Thus, my attorney and I decided that would be the best course of action.
Tuesday came, and I presented myself to the SORNA office. Once inside, and sitting with the SORNA officer, she began to explain their decision. And that is when it came to light that my time on California’s registry had been incorrectly tallied! She retallied my time using the correct date of my initial registration (April 2007), and determined that I was not required to register in D.C. I was provided with a signed letter stating their investigation had determined that I was no longer required to register, and I was out the door. Done! Free, alas, from the confines of registration!
I was not provided with an opportunity to explore my having an expungement, and the effect (or lack thereof) it would have on my having to register. Since D.C. law does not specifically state that the expungement must originate in a D.C. court, this would have been one of my points challenging SORNA’s original decision. Fortunately for me, this became a moot point.
Another individual on this forum stated that they had done some homework and couldn’t find a state that doesn’t include some language pertaining to the length of registration being the state’s own, or the original jurisdiction’s, whichever is longer. I’ve seen this language used (Illinois comes to mind) and the clear intent is to prevent, for example, an individual moving from California, to a state that might offer some relief. However, in addition to D.C., I present Maryland. As you might recall from earlier in this post, Maryland was number two on my list of possible places to live and will likely be a state that I eventually move to sometime in the not-so-distant future. So, to that individual, I encourage you to read up on Maryland’s laws.
Here is a copy of D.C.’s laws: https://mpdc.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/mpdc/publication/attachments/DC_Code_SexOffenderRegistration_0.pdf
Information for Maryland can be found here: https://www.dpscs.state.md.us/onlineservs/sor/frequently_asked_questions.shtml
Please also note that Maryland’s laws were challenged in the state’s highest court, and that court sided with the plaintiff. Therefore, there’s a lot of laws that cannot be applied retroactively. That ruling, and the effects of it, can easily be found using simple Google searches.
I hope this information helps. Good luck, and god speed.
I was reading the SB421 amended bill and trying to understand. So basically a misdemeanor of 647.6 is no longer granted an internet exclusion?