ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: Nov 21, Dec 19 – Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings 2020 (Phone only)


Sex offender compliance operation results in 32 arrests in Sacramento County

[Sacramento Bee]

A three-day operation by law enforcement agencies in Sacramento County to make sure convicted sex offenders are complying with sex offender registration requirements resulted in 32 arrests.

The operation, which began Aug. 21, was carried out by the multi-agency Sacramento Sexual Assault Felony Enforcement Team in conjunction with the Sacramento County Probation Department, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Parole Team, California Office of Correctional Safety, Sacramento County Sheriff’s Problem Oriented Policing Teams, the U.S. Marshals Service and the Rancho Cordova and Sacramento police departments.

Join the discussion

  1. AlexO

    So did these people actually conduct any real criminal activity outside of arbitrary registry rules? And yes, they are arbitrary since there’s zero evidence that any of these rules actually do anything.

    • Trish

      Well holy sheeeet! Are they trying to send a scary message are they scared ! Seems like a little over board for 32 x- fellows! Haya….do we need to send out the national guard for rules violations ! What’s wrong with these idiots?


    Janice, I do hope that as an organization as leader, we can at least see that these individuals do not get railroaded and address compliance checks as harassment. If not on parole or probation, there should be no reason for le to contact you.
    What I find odd is the different agencies involved. Even represented at the federal level. Concentration camps and roundups are not that far off if nothing is addressed.

  3. Nicholas Maietta

    Let’s look at it the right way.

    They targeted 300 people already suspected of something they found 17 new registration violation cases which did not result in arrests, meaning these were likely people who moved without saying, or they didn’t answer their door and this number is made to look like actual new cases when in reality it just means detectives have to do followup to make sure that it’s not just people at work our out for the day. Only 49 of those 300 checks were known address checks. This means that there were only really 49 known to be sex offenders targeted out of the 3,797 people and likely much of the homeless sex offender population which is 422 people. 422 is far more than 300, which means they only targeted sex offender with address out of all of the sex offenders, but only 49 of them.

    As reality has it 49 targetted out of 3797 means that only <%2 of the registrants were selected for checking compliance with 17 of those people found to be out of compliance. This means that only 0.5% of sex offenders targeted are now suspected of being out of compliance but not charged or convicted yet with only 14 people currently charged for non-compliance, or less than <1% of the entire population being charged after the sweep targeted sweep.

    There were 32 arrests with only 14 of them for sex offender violations.That means there were 18 people who were charged with OTHER crimes which means it's likely those 18 people are on parole or probation an and receiving violations of their conditions. If 18 arrested her not in violation of a sex offender law but were targeted, it means they were probationers or parolees who were NOT sex offenders, meaning that this wasn't just a sex offender sweep. This was a sweep of everyone being targeted in a wider net.

    I'm going to guess that US marshals were involved because the number of non-sex offenders who were to be located with active warrants (fugitives from justice) and the fact that the remainder of those targeted were sex offenders who were on their radar.

    Again, i want to emphasize that not a single sex offender was arrested for a new sex crime. Additionally, 14 out of the 3797 arrested with 17 others needing follow up. That's less than 1% of the entire population in their Jurisdiction.

    I don't know if my numbers are right, but this is how i interpret it.

  4. It doesn't work

    Did they get all them “obsconders” of that there Domestic Violence Registry?

  5. Matthew

    This is the kind of crap that gives us all bad names. Just be compliant. Plain and Simple. Just do what is required to the best of your ability.

    • Bobb

      Yes, and it is the kind of crap like not going to the back of the bus, and not being compliant with the law, and not doing what was required to the best of her abilities what made Ms. Rosa Parks give a bad name to all African Americans. Plain and simple.

      Wait…. wait….

      • Matthew

        Are you really comparing Rosa Parks to our requirement and ignoring it? Get your head together. These are the negative stories that puts us under the wrong umbrella. What were these people’s charges? Exactly, can’t answer that. Quit crying about this.

        • kind of living

          @ Matthew <<< , so if we were to truly do as Rosa Parks we would not be put in jail for a Reg violation ? , do you know what any of these people were truly charged with ? I think not . the fact is , is with all the crime in Sac they targeted sex offenders , I don't remember hearing LE targeting on this scale for all the other crimes that go on in SAC, go on get with the program , what will the neighbors think ?

        • Matthew

          They also do this with gang related groups.

    • kind of living

      @I agree we should always be in compliance , but this still is way over board on the part of law enforcement , no matter what spin you put on it

      • Timmr

        Yes they are using the tendency for about 10% of the registrants, who for some reason don’t follow rules. That is probably a general rule anywhere. That doesn’t mean any of these people reoffended. That is the unstated message, though, so the agencies can look like heroes. It’s propoganda at public expense.

      • Matthew

        My issue is that it gives people a reason to talk negatively. That is whole purpose of it being a bad thing.

    • Trish

      Are you the police! Just be compliant? It is not good to just be compliant to every whim while oppression and madening social injustice runs rampant! Thank you mr. Matthew!

  6. Pedro

    I guess that we need to buy more donuts… these guys must be really board… i can’t believe this, what are they trying to accomplish…?? Maybe end of year budget spending i hope they reached their goal… Pathetic!!!

    • Q

      States get federal funding to help them manage sex offenders. Some of it used for compliance checks.
      federal funding=$$$for the state and local police agencies
      compliance checks=$$$ in overtime for the cops
      I’m sure some of this funding is used for other things sex offender related. The police are just one dot on the map of the sex offender cash cow. Ever $ wonder $ why $ nobody (courts-lawmakers-treatment psychologists etc) wants $ to $ acknowledge $ the $ truth that $ we $ are $ not $ the $ dangerous $ monsters $ they $ claim $ we $ are?

      • Margaret Moon

        The agencies represented here received funding and I would bet my eyeteeth that everyone who took part in the exercise was paid overtime. Officers and agents love this !

        It would be very interesting to know how much each of the 14 arrests cost taxpayers.

        • Timmr

          Yes, and relatively safe. They are not going after drug kingpins or weapons smugglers after all, but get the same value out of it: saving the public from the monsters.

  7. CS

    And this makes the Sacramento area oh so much safer, everybody in the area can now sleep better at night.

  8. Harry

    Notice the timing with SB421

  9. Aero1

    I think everybody’s been thrue this the cops love it

  10. David

    8 !!?? It takes eight gawd-damned law enforcement agencies to conduct such an operation?? WTF?? LEOs: “Let’s just waste a ton of taxpayers’ money and line our pockets with overtime pay!!”

    • Queue the music and video crew

      I think I hear the Cops theme in the background with the video crew in hot pursuit!

  11. CS

    Don’t forget they wear big bullet proof vests that say Police special unit and carry automatic looking rifles just to check on us. Not overkill or anything.

  12. C

    Plus it’s a lot easier than fighting antifa cucks in Berkeley or getting their feet wet lending some help in Texas.

    I’m totally pro LE when it comes to fighting real crime, but this is a joke.

  13. michael

    I’m in San Diego County…. And unincorporated (so its the Sheriff) SDSO… I am NOT ON PAROLE/PROB.

    Thugs came out to my place (2 of them) Had a LIST in hand of names and faces… checking on.

    They were on the OTHER SIDE of my 6′ locked fence/gate.

    Couldn’t come through I saw them at the gate, I went near, they didn’t ask my name said my picture matched. I told them I know what they are here for, I live here and that is it HARASSMENT Plain and SIMPLE and there is NO LAW for them to do a COMPLIANCE CHECK unless I have committed or they suspect i’ve committed a crime. They asked If I had the same car and no job I said yes. They said…. DID I SEE THEM ON MY CCTV Cameras…. I said YES and that was it they left. (Property littered with CCTV Cameras recording 24/7)

    • Atheisitcally Yours

      Nothing that a LAWSUIT against the law enforcement agency doing the “compliance checking” will take care of! I hope its a CLASS ACTION, and the violating law enforcement agency is SUED OUT OF EXISTENCE!

    • wonderin

      Yes, these checks are very demeaning and callous, adding to the continuing cruel and unusual punishment directed at us and our innocent families for the rest of our lives.

      • Harry

        It is time to file harassment suits against these LEOs under the 290. $25,000 per visit may start to sting, after a while.

  14. Atheisitcally Yours

    HOW is any “compliance monitoring” LEGALLY JUSTIFIABLE? Any 290 registrant that is OFF PAROLE OR PROBATION, has their 4th Amendment right to PRIVACY back, AND there is NOTHING in PC 290 that allows for law enforcement to “monitor” ANY 290 registrant for alleged “compliance”!

    Please advise how law enforcement is getting away with “compliance checks” on NON-PROBATIONER/PAROLEE 290 registrants!

    • Timothy Moore

      I don’t know. Noone’s found a lawyer to advise anything but leave it alone.

  15. ST

    No one seems to know or has found if it is written into CA law about compliance checks??? Is that right?

    • Timothy Moore

      It is not in California PC 290. They wanted it written in, but a court case stopped that.

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • 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.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • 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.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues 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.  

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *