CA Assembly Committee Passes New Tiered Registry Bill SB 384

The Assembly’s Public Safety Committee passed the new Tiered Registry (SB 384) tonight by a vote of 5 to 2. All those voting in support of the bill were Democrats; all voting in opposition to the bill were Republicans.

Senator Scott Wiener was unavailable to present the bill at the hearing because the Senate had not yet adjourned. Therefore, Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez-Fletcher, a member of the Public Safety Committee, presented the bill. During the hearing, Gonzalez-Fletcher stated that she “hesitated to support” earlier versions of the tiered registry bill, but “felt much better” about the current version of the bill because it assigns all offenses involving children to Tier 3.

Also speaking in support of the bill were a deputy district attorney from Los Angeles and a spokesperson from the City of San Francisco. The deputy DA described the bill as both pro-law enforcement and pro-safety. He told committee members that no one will be removed from the registry without a “full screening” by local law enforcement and the local DA’s office.

According to the deputy DA, it is time to change a law that has been in place and not changed since 1947. He added that the registry today is not used to solve crimes.

In addition to this testimony, nine individuals representing nine organizations briefly stated their support for the bill. The organizations include the ACLU, Equality California, CA Attorneys for Criminal Justice and the Los Angeles Sheriff. Although ACSOL attended the hearing, ACSOL did not speak either in favor of or in opposition to the bill. In fact, there was no one present who spoke in opposition to the bill.

If the bill is to become law, it must be passed by the full Assembly and then return to the Senate for a concurrence vote. Both actions are expected to take place on Friday, September 15.

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

 

  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. 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.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. 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.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. 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.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. 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.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. 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.
  23. 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.  
 

129 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I think the key here was Lorena Gonzalez. She agreed to vote for it as long as any crime dealing with children went into Tier 3. Note what she said. She said she felt better knowing that crimes involving children went into Tier 3. She did not say, “According to the best research we find that the public is safer with these offenders in Tier 3.” Making laws is not about anyone’s feelings. Making laws — using the enormous power of the government — is about achieving a higher public purpose. It is not about making someone feel better. We have long believed that progress through legislative action is possible. And setting up a tiered system is clearly progress because some will get off the registry and I’m glad for them. But the registry is the original sin and it’s got to go and it’s got to go through judicial action. It won’t be easy, but we are making progress there too.

For reference: A list of California Penal Codes that SORNA classifies as Tier 1

236 False Imprisonment
243.4(a)-(d) Cal. Penal Code § 243.4(e)(1) Cal. Penal Code § 261.5(c) & (d)
Sexual Battery (victim 18 or older)
Sexual Battery
Unlawful Sexual Intercourse with a Minor (Misdemeanor)
285 Incest22 (victim 18 or older)
288.2(a)(1) Sending Harmful Matter to a Minor (Misdemeanor)
288.4 Arrangement of Meeting with a Minor for Lewd and Lascivious Behavior
288a(h)
289(h)
311.1
311.2 Possession or Misdemeanor Offense
311.3

There are only 4 offenses that SORNA recommends be classified as Tier 3

Kidnapping ( with intent to commit a sexual offense)
Rape
Attempted Rape
Sexual Battery ( victim less that 13 yrs)

(Anything not listed falls into tier 2. )
The current bill before the California legislature is SORNA on steroids. And it is appalling.

I understand the sentiment that currently every registrant in California is in tier 3 , but that is only partially correct. Currently, every registrant is categorized as low risk, serious or high risk ( not known to the public, but to law enforcement based on penal code offense, criminal history and probably static 99) . This bill aims to shuffle people around based on some new and improved model far harsher than federal and current State requirements and assign a new higher risk level for many, many registrants. It’s like Allstate suddenly doubling a premium by assigning a driver into a higher risk category based on a car accident 20 yrs ago. It wouldn’t stand. The biggest problem with this bill that I see is that it makes no reference to the registrants who have already been complying with all the registry requirements for years. Major due process violation in the making. I’m beginning to see where this is all headed. Now I KNOW we will prevail eventually.

These misguided morons shouldn’t have passed this bill in the current form. The bill needs to be gutted as it may make the situation worse for the country at this point. There is no going back now. The entire registry must be taken down ASAP.

If this puts people on the public registry that weren’t before, haven’t we reached a point now in the legal system where that’s ex-post-facto even for sex offender registration? It should also violate Substantive Due Process to declare someone dangerous enough for a list when they weren’t before and didn’t have a trial to determine it.

At least the long timeframe to implementation should give Janice time to file motions for those negatively affected.

I would like to add my confusion to the 288(a) question. Does the statement by Fletcher mean other amendments were snuck in that essentially makes ALL child-related offenses a Tier 3? If that’s the case, that is a serious game changer. I don’t know for sure, but it appears that the majority of registrants have child-related offenses. That would gut any opportunity for most of us to ever petition.
Is this what happened?

I’ve never been able to decipher legal documents. Been staring at the bill the last half hour and still confused as hell.

What tier is 288.2(a)(1)? Currently have felony but will reduce to misdemeanor as soon as I can.

Also, currently not on megan’s site at all. Will that change?

Thanks.

@Chris F – spot on!

I still would like to know what’s driving this hard push, e.g. a) Gov Brown leaving, b) Legislative reelection next year, c) financial reward from Feds, or d) all the above.

Changing the rules of a sport mid-season can be happen, but the rules of life and then going back to negatively apply them? No, not right.

Janice, do you think this is the right time to get some RSOs together and sue for the cruel and unusual punishment aspect of the registry? Maybe if every state started what Colorado is doing, the tide will change!
I don’t know. I just don’t think that leaving it up to states to decide our fate is going to work….

I haven’t read the bill in depth, but I can’t imagine that all child related offenses would be Tier 3. That would put so many more on the public site and hence would make the public site unmanageable, something they wanted to avoid and change with this bill. She must mean serious child related offenses. I hope Janice will explain if this was a wrong and uneducated statement. I also hope that there will be enough grounds now to fight this registry and its added punishment without due process all together. When will these people finally look at the evidence that HAS to be presented to them. It can not just be ignored. It is as if an employer tells me I am not qualified because I don’t have a degree, but I have the degree right in my hands to show, and he just refuses to look at it???

Our family is quite new to this issue and trying to understand it all. Question….Rape was Tier II under SB421. Is it in Tier III under SB384?

Isn’t it obvious now that there will not be any legislative relief through a tiered registry. Everyone’s obsessing of the minutiae of the latest amendments. The only hope is judicial action, like in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Colorado. I am sure that there would be many willing and suitable plaintiffs who can demonstrate harm/punishment. Allison Ruttenberg. the Colorado attorney, indicated in the conference call that she would be amenable to consult and contribute her notes/research. I am sure that the funding could be raised through a directed contribution appeal on this website (and NARSOL would probably coooperate). Yes, it will take time, but whatever. It’ll be less than the lifetime most of us are facing. Also, appeals may be decided in the meantime which well help Janice — put out the call and head for federal court!

I haven’t seen this question asked yet and can’t seem to understand the bill enough to decipher the answer myself. If I currently have an exclusion from the website, (single misdemeanor 647.6) will I still be excluded until the tiered registry kicks in, in 2021? I saw someone list something in the other thread about everyone being listed until the tiered registry kicks in. Thanks to whoever can help with understanding this.

An ugly baby if I ever saw one. I guess the parents love it though. Ugg

I don’t know why I bother commenting here. I never get an answer. But I will try again. My son’s offense is one count of child porn Fed conviction…no previous anything….nothing since. served six years….currently working, model PO…former College prof, now road worker….10 years supervised
release three years into it…registration life, but not currently on Megan’s list Will he be now? So now…..he will be considered a tier 3, the worst of the worst???????? Someone please please please make me understand. He is not alone…..many many many who never intended or touched a child was in a sting that occured on what was supposed to be legal adult porn sites. How do we fight this.

I am confused, Janice keeps mentioning that all felony CP posession (311.11) ends up in Tier 3, but I’ve read the bill several times…

(1) (A) A tier one offender is subject to registration for a minimum of 10 years. A person is a tier one offender if the person is required to register for conviction of a misdemeanor described in subdivision (c), or for conviction of a felony described in subdivision (c) that was not a serious or violent felony as described in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 or subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7.

It says a felony CP possession can still be tier 1 if deemed nonviolent…I’m wondering why nobody has addressed this, including Janice? Can someone verify this?

I told you that the tier system was a joke, and that it was going to put a lot of you in level 3, with out even considering risk assessment , just like they did here in Michigan long ago. Hopefully now when the 25th gets here, SCOTUS will deny Snyder and a bunch of us herein Michigan who were screwed by the tiered system for the past decade or more will finally be removed from the registry. On the other hand if they review it, and find it in our favor everyone will get relief from this unconstitutional train wreck.

Brilliant–the state will spend 70 million dollars to shuffle 110,000 names around with the same results.

this is what we get for people supporting the last version that was already so seriously flawed saying it’s better than nothing…for a vast majority of us, no, it’s not better

This article includes a good sample of reporting on the legislation and interesting piece of trivia on how it got back into the system.

http://witnessla.com/dozens-of-bills-met-their-end-while-hundreds-passed-through-the-suspense-file-gauntlet/

Hey guys still kind of confused is a single count of 288(a) tier 2 or tier 3 thanks

By making felony possession (DA rarely doesn’t charge with a felony) Tier 3….the supporters OBVIOUSLY want the registry to grow, grow big and quickly. Watch it be double in size by 2030 thanks to pornography addiction.

I am off probation in 3 months. I will be requesting reduction from felony to misdomeanor within 1 yr. My lawyer, court appointed phsyc. And even P.O. (off the record) said it should not be an issue to get it reduced. Q: does this mean if and when this dipshit law goes into affect 2021 , I would be tier 1?
I guess I shouldn’t care about This F’ed up state , I only care about IML and Federal law, because that is what is going to burden me getting back to my family and job.

You forgot to add a very real one which is murder answering the door by a vigilante after your name and address are given directly to them via this worthless registry!

Face it…we are being socially shamed and shunned. Nothing is getting better and it is not going to.

So, two questions. First my husband’s conviction is 288(a) Lewd and Lacivious Acts with a child under 14, read the SB 384 multiple times. I don’t understand if his conviction would be tier two or tier three. It was one conviction however, he was given a suspended sentence that he violated and sent to prison (1999- conviction date and 2006- release from prison) My second question is when this goes in effect, will it be ten or twenty years from conviction date or July 2021? Anyone can clarify I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks.

Beth, it looks like Tier 2.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB384

It would be Tier 3 if a repeat conviction:

(F) The person was convicted of violating subdivision (a) of Section 288 in two proceedings brought and tried separately.

It is not listed in either Tiers 1 or 2, but it is listed in 667.5, and Tier 2 defines a listing there as a Tier 2 since it is not a Tier 3.

Search here for 288 and then look for the (a) somewhere around it.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=667.5.

You’ll find: (6) Lewd or lascivious act as defined in subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 288.

The time runs from release, so 20 years would be 2026:

(d) A person described in subdivision (c), or who is otherwise required to register pursuant to the Act shall register for 10 years, 20 years, or life, following a conviction and release from incarceration, placement, commitment, or release on probation or other supervision, as follows: