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)


CA Assembly Passes Tiered Registry Bill [Updated 9/16, 6 a.m.]

Today the Assembly passed the Tiered Registry Bill (SB 384) by a vote of 42 to 22. A minimum of 41 votes was required for the bill to pass. Due to the Assembly’s passage, the final legislative step for the bill is concurrence by the Senate which is expected later today.

During the Assembly’s consideration of the bill, only three members spoke: two in favor and one in opposition. Speaking in favor of the bill were members Evan Low, who presented the bill, and Lorena Gonzalez-Fletcher who stated that “this bill will help protect children” and “allow law enforcement to focus on those who are really dangerous”. She repeated a prior statement that any convicted of an offense involving a child would be assigned to Tier 3, which requires lifetime registration.

Member Melissa Melendez was the sole person to speak in opposition to the bill. She said that while she agrees with the contents of Tier 1 and Tier 3, she disagrees with the contents of Tier 2. She also stated that she agrees that there are too many low level registrants on the tiered registry bill today.

———– UPDATE 9/16, 6 a.m. —————–

The Senate concurred with the bill today about 1 am. Although the bill has passed it will not take effect until January 2021. Until then current law prevails. – Janice Bellucci


Join the discussion

  1. David Kennerly, Social Contaminant

    Can anyone venture a guess as to how the passage of this bill might complicate any Registry-related lawsuits during the three years before the tiers go into effect?

  2. ab

    Here’s how to fight this:

    1. Make any assembly person and senator who voted to pass it look horrible. Use any and all arguments possible to make them regret voting yes.

    2. Even before the governor signs this make sure to put public pressure on him to not make it law. Force him to realize how
    politically unpopular he will be if he signs this.

    3. Flood the Senate and legislature in California with proposals that amend current law in contradictory ways to this legislation. For example take any offense mentioned in the recently passed bill and change the penal code for that offense. Completely invalidate a penal code by introducing a new and clearer one as a replacement or better yet multiple new codes. Suddenly offenses in the recently passed bill are no longer codified the same way and the bill becomes more and more useless.

    4. Introduce other legislation that directly amends the bill before it takes effect.

    5. Challenge the current lifetime requirement in California in court on all possible grounds.

    6. Amend and erode federal laws and make California law so inconsistent with them that federal law has to apply

    7. Litigate through federal court to make registration be deemed unconstitutional. If necessary litigate all the way to the United States Supreme Court and deal death blows to every aspect of all federal registration schemes currently on the books. Say for example the Megan’s Law website is no longer a thing.

    8. After it becomes active present in court every conceivable challenge imaginable. Luckily the remainder of 2017, all of 2018, 2019, and 2020 are between now and then. So that leaves enough time to build the most damaging cases possible and bring them to court in one epic wave after another.

    All of these should occur simultaneously.

    • Follow the $

      To point 1 and 2 you think we should now start fear mongering against ourselves to make them repeal or veto? There is no other way to make them regret it as we are not the consituency they care about and even if all of us voted in unison I would doubt we could sway the outcome of any election. I don’t like the idea of turning on ourselves hoping the outcome gets better when in fact it would probably get worse (everyone tier 3 and everyone public and now possible relief ever).

    • Chihuahua

      Umm let’s not fight it….thousands of no posts are getting off. You against us getting off??

      • ab

        I am against any legislation that confuses violent offenses with non violent ones. That lumps offenses into tiers without any regard of the facts of those offenses. I believe everyone regardless of offense should be able to no longer register eventually. Not by petition either, simply stop registering one day.

        Felony possession of child pornography should not be a tier three offense. Even the federal government considers it a tier one offense.

        I want everyone to be able to live life without all the garbage that comes with registration. The bill might do a few good things, but it simultaneously does a lot of horrific things.

        • SBB

          I agree! Even the NY Times has pointed out that “there have been hundreds of evidence-based, scientific studies on the question of the recidivism rate for sex offenders. The results of those studies are astonishingly consistent: Convicted sex offenders have among the lowest rates of same-crime recidivism of any category of offender.” It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that we’re wasting time, money, and valuable human resources with this crap. Thank you for speaking up, ab, and all the others that have spoken up over the years and right here on this forum!

    • norman

      God help us all..

      • James

        norman, Did He help the Jews? Did he help the millions of Chinese that Mao had killed or died during the great leap forward? There is your answer.

        • David Kennerly, Social Contaminant

          Speaking of mass-murdering Mao, during the Cultural Revolution in the 1960s – which also killed millions, there was this phenomenon of “Struggle Sessions” in which those accused of any number of high crimes such as reading literature or playing the violin or showing the slightest bit of ambition or talent could get one thrown into a mob who would beat and berate you until you publicly and abjectly confessed. Sounds a bit like sex offender treatment, doesn’t it?

  3. Atheisticallyyyours

    I wonder how the 2021 implementation of this bill will deal with “664” (ATTEMPTED) 288(a)’s. If there WAS NO VICTIM, where exactly IS the threat? Does the SARATSO address this?

  4. Stephen

    Great! But what is going to be done about the Static 99R (SARATSO score) trash that remains in this bill? The Minority Report style scam is locked in at time of release. Being put into tier 3 only because of the Static 99 does not seem constitutional, does it?? All because of 10 questions??

  5. HopingForHope

    Let me warn everyone: When this bill takes effect, as it is written currently and if it is signed into law, our lives will become a living hell. The release of so much information of this kind would probably be unprecedented in the history of California. When it takes effect, it will receive MASSIVE media coverage, and people will flock to the Megan’s Law website to look for names in their communities. People in your social circle, real estate agents, schools, employers, your children’s friends, you name it, they will learn quickly about your status as it goes viral in the social media. You will be labelled a monster even if your crime was 25 years ago and you’ve led a perfect life, because the listing will provide zero context. Our children and spouses will be severly tarnished by association, as freaked out parents tell their children to stop playing with your kids. Third parties will scrape the data (even if doing so is illegal) and sell it to hundreds of other websites who will push it out to millions more. Newspapers and other publishers will inevitably receive this information, and because it is public they will publish lists to sell more papers and drive more traffic to their websites. Worse, search engines will see the enormous spike in traffic and give this their highest priority. They already do. It’s the first listing you’ll see above everything else you might have accomplished in your life. And once it’s out there, it’s out there. The toothpaste is permanently out of the tube. It will be a field day for vigilantes and oversees blackmailers.

    We have three years to block this portion of the bill, otherwise, thousands of us will face ruinous, life-changing consequences.

    • anon

      I think we should all take a deep breath and dial back the rhetoric a little. The bill is a confusing mess, will likely be worked over by the courts and will be another 4 years before we see implementation. We’ve got a long ways to go.

    • Matt

      Hoping for hope: You’re right about everything except your last sentence. We do not have three years. This needs to happen now. Right now.

    • Counting the days

      So will the people that did this to us.

  6. jo

    so trying to wrap my head around this, like everyone else. 1995, 288(a) and (c) one conviction. Tier? And are you SURE?

  7. DavidH

    There should be no doubt that as the current laws stand today all options to fight the registry have been exhausted– it should be celebrated that the passage of a new set of laws opens up the ball game to lawsuit after lawsuit for decades to come. You should be happy!!

  8. David

    L.A. Times headline reads: “Gov. Brown supports bill sent to him that would end lifetime listing of many sex offenders on public registry”.
    I believe “many” really means “hardly any”.

    • jayjay

      How do you figure? There must be thousands of misdemeanors (647.6, misd. sexual battery, conduct with a 16/17 year old, indecent exposure, etc) who will find relief after 10 years. The majority of registrants, I would guess, are 288(a). They will get off after 20 years. Many, many registering for decades. In earlier versions of the bill 30,000 were projected to fall off automatically (those convicted before 1987, since stricken). All those will pretty much be Tier 1 and 2 and will be eligible to petition immediately in 2021. And get off unless the DA can prove to a judge they are a threat and their continued registration serves the public interest. That seems difficult.

      The people who got kicked in the soft parts are CP and assorted internet crimes. And people stuck in Tier 3 due to the Static99. The Static99 people need to make a case that the Static99 is useless for determining lifetime risk. I am convinced that ACSOL will continue to fight for the CP people, as they did get thrown under the bus with this bill (that ACSOL did not support, should it even matter).

      This bill in no way undermines the argument that the sex offender registry is punitive and not narrowly tailored to government interests – with everything that is known today.

      The bill is the bill once the governor signs it. Instead of griping here, it might be a better idea to be happy for the people who might find relief, and then circle the wagons and support ACSOL when it takes on the registry as a whole.

      Hopefully the people falling off will pitch in for the rest. That remains to be seen.

      • Not Really

        There is a way out for some of the Static99 is the ball and chain.

        (3) A person required to register as a tier three offender based solely on his or her risk level, pursuant to subparagraph (D) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (d) of Section 290, may petition the court for termination from the registry after 20 years from release from custody on the registerable offense, if the person (A) has not been convicted of a new offense requiring sex offender registration or an offense described in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 since the person was released from custody on the offense requiring registration pursuant to Section 290, and (B) has registered for 20 years pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 290; except that a person required to register for a conviction pursuant to Section 288 or an offense listed in subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7 who is a tier three offender based on his or her risk level, pursuant to subparagraph (D) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (d) of Section 290, shall not be permitted to petition for removal from the registry. The court shall determine whether community safety would be significantly enhanced by requiring continued registration and may consider the following factors: whether the victim was a stranger (known less than 24 hours) at the time of the offense; the nature of the registerable offense, including whether the offender took advantage of a position of trust; criminal and relevant noncriminal behavior before and after the conviction for the registerable offense; whether the offender has successfully completed a Sex Offender Management Board-certified sex offender treatment program; whether the offender initiated a relationship for the purpose of facilitating the offense; and the person’s current risk of sexual or violent reoffense, including the person’s risk levels on SARATSO static, dynamic, and violence risk assessment instruments, if known. If the petition is denied, the person may not re-petition for termination for at least three years.

      • The Static 99 Is A Scam

        What’s crazy about the SARATSO tool is that it’s supposed to be used in conjunction with the LS/CMI. It appears that CASOMB and the tiered registry bill’s authors completely tossed out the LS/CMI and are solely relying on the Static-99R.

        So in addition to the Static-99R being inadequate for determining *lifetime* risk, they are only using THAT — and not the LS/CMI with it — to place people into Tier 3. Why put so much weight on a very limited “risk” assessment? A risk assessment that lumps ALL offenses — whether violent or non-contact — together.

  9. DavidH

    everything is calculated and for a reason. Do you think going from 2019 to 2021 was an arbitrary number?? Think again who will no longer be in office or on their way out by this year. Jerry Brown must sign this bill–where does he stand? he is termed out, cant run for re-election, isn’t planning on a Presidential run! And what about the sponsors et. al. 2021 is a safe year for most! This is political. All these statements and amendments being made in congress are being made with the courts in mind as to intent–you dont think they dont anticipate a flood of lawsuits??

    This is not rocket science you witness it and bitch and complain about it every day. The registry is on its way out–no doubt about it. unfortunately we are the ones who suffer through it, but it’s positive we have this. All case law now is up for reset and we have different data and different mind sets to fight with–so feel emboldened

  10. Chester M

    I think for the people supporting this bill, law enforcement, the main goal is to reduce the number of people on the registry. And for the people opposing the bill the main goal was to punish all sex offenders forever, especially those who have victims who have already been told their abusers would be punished forever. So the way this shook out in the end was just slight of hand and politics. Lots of offenses got moved to tier 3 to mollify the opposition. However, for the supporters, since they were mainly concerned about number of individuals they strategically kept 288(a), probably the single most numerous offense on the registry, in tier 2 without explicitly stating it in the bill.

  11. It doesn't work

    The biggest problem with the public registry is not the disseminated public information though that is big. Most all of us are forever on the internet news. My picture was shown & my address was reported in the article. The big issue is the post sentence punishment of You Can’t Go Here, You Can’t Go There!! You Can’t Do This & You Can’t Do That!! & The Hits Keep On Community my.

    • Gregory W.

      I am in a thankful position of never having had articles written about me. Further, I am not on the public website. But this bill, because of the STATIC 99R score, will put me into Tier 3. From otherwise Tier 1, with no offense before/after my 2010 conviction, to Tier 3 ONLY because of my STATIC 99R score is absolute ludicrousy.

      Like others already said, the new STATIC 99 coding manual says a reassessment is needed every two years — and risk (whatever it is that “risk” constitutes) drops to about half for every five years without offense while in the community. Why, then, did the newest version of this bill just lock scores SARATSO scores “at time of release?”


      • someone who cares

        George and others ~ I always get confused when people mention the Static99R. The questions and answers for the Static99R will not change, so how can they legitimately use this as a risk tool? How old you were, have you lived with someone for 2 years, how many convictions, etc, etc. The answers will always be the same now or in 20 years, right? Unless a COR or expungement would let you answer differently on the number of convictions? Or are the using the Static99R in conjunction with another risk tool, like how much time has elapsed, offense free time, etc? It is BS anyways, but I would still like to see some answers here to explain this.

        • Gregory W.

          One big problem with the tiered registry bill is they locked a person’s score “at time of release.” Changes to score can happen. For example, someone could have never “lived with a lover” for at least two years at release, but then at rescoring he indicates that he’s married or found a girlfriend/boyfriend AND they’ve have/had lived together for at least two years. That’s minus one point. That one point could mean a lot (i.e. between Tier 1/2 and Tier 3 placement).

          So if a score is locked at release, how can something like this be reported??

          There was also a document written by CASOMB that stated that an agency can choose to replace “age at release” with *current age.* Someone a few months ago posted a Google cached version because for some reason, CASOMB scrubbed and deleted that document within the past year. Makes me wonder why? But, again, by locking a person’s score at “time of release,” the bill robs a person to be reassessed as per the Coding Rules itself. (Per Coding Rules, reassessment must happen every two years.)

          Most significantly, a person’s so-called Static “risk” is [about] halved for every five years offense free in the community. This is ALSO in the Coding Rules itself. So in most cases, a “high risk offender” who is scored high initially, who was placed in the third tier only because of the Static 99R, will not otherwise qualify for Tier 3 placement under the Coding Rules if he remains five years offense free in the community (unless his score is ridiculously high: like “10” [which is twice of five — and the threshold from being flagged Tier 3 for only the Static 99R]).

          And as already mentioned, “static” means NO CHANGE. The tiered bill completely dismisses any dynamic factors. Furthermore, the Static 99 assessments lump all offenses together. So what it’s measuring (‘risk’) is not at all defined because under this premise, the Static 99 assessments treat violent and non contact similarly. But in this case, perversely, “non contact” is actually given a GREATER score than violence. Which is even more bewildering!

        • Joe

          Replacing the current age with age at release makes no sense, whatsoever, as it totally discounts offense-free time in the community. A 70 year old just out of prison has a much greater probability of reoffense than a 70 year old who was released at 20 and has 5 decades of exemplary life to show for.

          It is like assessing the same risk and insurance rates to a 70 year grandma old who just got a drivers license as to a 70 year old who has been driving without ticket / accident for 50+ years.

          The STATIC99 only claims to project risk for 10 years. Its creator claims that a person has zero extra risk over a non registrant after 17 years. It is one of the great mysteries in life why this STATIC risk instrument is used for a lifetime of DYNAMIC actuarial projections.

          If this were not – gasp – about sex offenders, there is not way this sort of thing would not be invalidated, like yesterday.

          And no, the STATIC99 does NOT judge a non-contact offense worse than a contact offense. Or a male victim vs. a female victim. It does NOT judge, period. Judging is left to the court, and for the most part (outside of federal CP convictions which are no longer rooted in reality) contact offenses are considered far worse than non-contact offenses.

          The STATIC99 merely states that the reoffense risk for certain people with certain quantifiable characteristics is different. BASED on a meta-study, which segmented a large population and tallied re-offending. According to that people (as a group, just like insurance companies do to drivers) who are young at release have a higher risk. People who have non-contact offenses, or male victims have a higher risk to reoffend because that is what the meta-study showed. BUT! For 10 (ten) years from release. No more. It says so in the introduction.

          Again, if this were in the sane part of the world, a first year law student should win a law suit invalidating the notion of assigning lifetime risk with the STATIC99. Of this I am convinced.

  12. Ellis

    OK so for my situation, this new law requires that a judge consider “sucessful completion” of a CASOMB certified program. The treatment program I did was not CASOMB certified, but it was done in a university setting with a well qualified professor/psychologist. Before some of you thank and praise CASOMB: Think about how they’ve hurt many. CASOMB pushes junk science like the Static 99 and polygraph. And I don’t think it needs mention; but CASOMB’s second in command happens to own the largest CASOMB approved treatment program: Sharper Future. I “successfully completed” said treatment. Almost four years after discharging from supervision (and living free of any more legal problem), I see no need to try the infamous Sharper Future that I hear so many talk about. But if I’m made to do it, how much will it cost? All because of Ms. Tom Tobin?

  13. Trying to Understand

    Hello everyone,
    My girlfriend and I have been actually trying to figure this all out. When you’re off of it, where does that place you when it comes to finding a place to live and traveling domestically?

    • AlexO

      If you no longer need to register, your as free as it can get.

    • Interested party

      When you are removed from the registry domestic travel will resemble what the circumstance are now … consult a local lawyer to any out of state locations you visit to find out if what laws will apply to you

      • Mr. D

        @ Interested Party – As it relates to domestic travel after you are removed from the California tiered registry I think it depends on your circumstances . For example if your charges have been dismissed and expunged via 1203.4 you don’t need to contact or worry about anybody as you travel domestically or internationally.

    • AJ

      @Trying to understand:
      You’re never quite free, sadly. You may be free from registration in your current state, but you may have to register if you move to another state–this is one of the fundamental problems with it being considered regulatory. You are never guaranteed freedom from the requirement to register as long as it’s viewed as regulatory, versus punitive. Never.

      Example: MN is a non-SORNA state and most RCs are required to register for 10 years. On “10 years plus one day” you move to a SORNA state like MS, with a minimum required registration of 15 years. Based on MS’s statutes, you are required to register for another 5 years. So much for being off the list, right?
      (Actually, MS law would try to make you register for 15 years, but that would be an easy Equal Protection win.)

      • KM

        That isn’t entirely true.

        1. Federal SORNA has its own tier system
        2. Most states adopt registration requirements that state something along the lines “for the duration, you would have to register in the state of conviction.
        3. Federal SORNA can not force a state to register. For example. In California right now I would have to register, but in New York, the DCJS has determined I do not register here.

  14. wb

    which 288a or 288[A] is considered a worse crime because some of my papers from court in 1989 say 288a some say288[a] I have a lewd n lascivious under 14 victim was 13 I was 18 no force violence or sex invoved ???

    • NPS

      288(a) “Lewd and lascivious under 14” is consider worse than 288a, but that depends on the subsection of 288a.

      288(a) is Tier 2. If more than one case tried separately, then it’s Tier 3.

      288a(b) and it’s subsequent paragraphs are Tier 1
      Subdivision (g) or (h) of 288a is Tier 2
      Paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) or subdivision (d), (f), or (i) of Section 288a is Tier 3

      • wb

        thanx for the info NPS SO IM ASSUMING IM TIER 2 288[A] 1989 NO OTHER CONVICTIONS/?

        • jayjay

          I would say yes. Eligible to petition off right away in 4 years when this takes effect. And remember, the DA has to PROVE that it is in society’s best interest to deny your petition. That is a huge difference from a CoR (for which 288(a) is not eligible in the first place) where you have to prove a negative, that YOU are not a threat to society.

          You should be good. As you should.

  15. American Detained in America

    As someone now Tier 3, this is ridiculous. No words except that I’m very disappointed with ACSOL for supporting this ridiculous bill.

    • David Kennerly, Social Contaminant

      Well, as you know, ACSOL didn’t support the amended version of this bill. They supported the concept of a tiered registry as well as the earlier form of the bill before it was eviscerated beyond all recognition. Regardless, I can’t find any evidence that its support for the earlier version was at all decisive or even influential upon the fortunes of the bill.

      This appears to be a pretty terrible law, to the extent that any of us can discern considering that it appears to be almost willfully opaque. Perhaps there are some carefully concealed attributes or longer-term strategies which it will fulfill to our eventual benefit but I’m not seeing it.

    • Interested party

      @ American detained in America

      Fully understand your frustration … ACSOL to my understanding never offered public support or criticism of this final version.

      Definitely supported earlier versions that offered a path for 90% RCs but when this final version was revived no support was given.

    • jayjay

      First, they did not support this version of the bill. Second, if you do not approve, you can always vote them out of a job, or vote to cut their funding / paycheck. Wait, wait….

  16. David Kennerly, Social Contaminant

    Let me try this again:

    Can anyone venture a guess as to how the passage of this bill might complicate any Registry-related lawsuits during the years before the tiers go into effect?

    • TS

      @David Kennerly, social contaminate

      Complicate lawsuits? A law that has yet to go into effect? Are you saying this is a CA wait and see the effect first before challenging? I say file an injunction once other cases deem the registry unconstitutional and press it before it goes into effect.

      • David Kennerly, Social Contaminant

        No, I’m certainly not recommending to wait and see. I am asking if the law will impinge in any way upon lawsuits filed against the Registry.

  17. Not Really

    ACSOL didn’t support this version.

  18. Jay

    I am confused about this bill. My husband pleaded guilty to a 243.4 (a) felony. He will have the chance to reduce it to a misdemeanor but not until late 2020. Since this bill does not go into effect until 2021, will he still be a Tier 3 or a Tier 1?

    • NPS

      Get it reduced. As a misdemeanor, it’s a tier 1. As a felony, it’s a tier 3.

      Why 2020? Is that when his probation ends?

      • Jay

        Yes that is when his probation ends. What happens if someone reduces the felony to a misdemeanor in 2021? Will they be put in tier 3 then moved to tier 1?

        • NPS

          17b seems to have been untouched by this bill, so any registrant can have it reduced if they are eligible for it. Once granted, they can petition for removal from the website (which is how it’s done now) and petition to reduce the tier (once enacted in 2021). If your husband can file the 17b sooner than that, do so.

  19. Stumped

    Can somebody help me please, do the way I understand it anything that falls under 220 is a tier 3? Just last year I had it reduced to a misdemeanor then expunged and finally received a COR. Conviction was in 1996, served county never prison. Have been out of trouble since then, how can I get this lowered to a misdemeanor, expunged and receive a COR and still be consider tier 3. My particular 220 conviction still required for me to register even after the COR, so how is this suppose to help me? In fact the way I see it it’s actually worse because my expungement, and COR will be nulified? Janice if you can comment please!

    • AlexO

      All of these things sort of work independently. CoR itself does not relief registration. It mainly allows you to get certain state licenses that you couldn’t otherwise. 290.5 is what relives registration and the prerequisite of that is having the CoR. As you said, 220 is on the no-relief list of 290.5 which is why you still have to register.

      “Expungement” isn’t actually expungment in California. 1203.4 in California sets aside your guilty plea for the purposes of civilian background checks (job apps, housing, etc). But it does not provide a true expungment which completely erases your conviction and seals the record. So that’s why expungement seemingly has no barring on the tiered bill. So yes, you did everything exactly right and took it as far as you can short of a governor’s full pardon, and you’re still going to be treated exactly the same as that serial rapist. It’s a messed up bill.

      But, you should have a strong case under the 14th amendment should the bill go into effect as is. There’s going to be a ton of lawsuits like this in 3 years with people like you.

      • Stumped

        Thanks for the prompt reply, this is so confusing and in no way makes sense, I’m basically legally in legal terms being told by the courts that I’m “rehabilitated” whatever that means, and that I’m no danger to anyone whatever that means, I’ve been with the same employer for over 20 years, have two kids and wife own my house, live my life and let others live theirs, as normal life as normal could be but yet I still will be required to register and be on database? How is this law helping people? It’s supposed to be helping people like me for what I am and not for what an outdated “lifetime registration” is saying that I am. So even if my I was able to get the charges reduced to a misdemeanor it will not make a difference?

        • AlexO

          Your case sounds somewhat similar to one of the plaintiffs in the Colorado case. He petitioned twice for relief and was denied twice despite doing everything exactly right just like you have. Someone who literally got everything that’s possible to get and still being forced to register is a huge issue. The courts/system is basically saying don’t bother because non of it matters; there’s no difference between you at the top of the tree and the guy at the very bottom who’s a multi-time offender who doesn’t care about anything. And that is grounds for a strong lawsuit. The fact that they’re going to tier people without an actual individual evaluation (and someone simply checking your record for particular codes is not an evaluation) infringes on several things. The state is going to lose a crap ton of money with this thing.

        • Stumped

          It just doesn’t make sense, everything that is required of me I have given, letters of recommendation, character letters from family, friends, coworkers speaking highly of me contributed to me receiving expungement and COR, so that now they can just take a code and automatically say that doesn’t matter when a judge in the court of law has said I am “rehabilitated” the COR in itself is a recommendation from the judge to the governor to pardon me. Obviously that most likely will never happen but don’t they see these things and what a mess it is? Do you have a link to the case In Colorado?

      • Mr. D

        @AlexO – Please check out SB 393 which is awaiting signature from the governor. It focuses on sealing arrest records if they did not result in a conviction. If those with a 1203.4 are eligible it might help eliminate the adverse postings from the vulture websites

        • AlexO

          It doesn’t look like this bill would help us. It seems like it’s more aimed at diversionary programs like drugs and people forced into sex trafficking. These people can qualify for a 1203.49 expungment (slightly different from our 1203.4) which this bill would then seal. In fact, it looks like the bill makes exception to this sealing for people subject to 290 status. Obviously I could be wrong, but that’s how I’m reading it. I’d love to have some other eyes chime in on this.

    • Justice

      @stumped if you don’t mind you mentioned you had a 220 pc conviction and got a COR and eventually reduced to misdemeanor ; Moreover, I am confused because I have the same conviction 220 pc , I have a COR , I can’t be relieved fron 290.5 registration without a full pardon and no where do I read that a 220 pc conviction is a wobbler -nor does it qualify under prop 47 for sentencing reduction from a felony to a misdemeanor. If you would could you tell me how it was done in your case , I would really appreciate that along with those with the same problem I am dealing with . Thanks

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 *