ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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


Monthly Meetings | Recordings (3/20 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings
ACSOL’s Online EPIC Conference: Empowered People Inspiring Change Sept 17-18, 2021

California

CA: Gov. Brown supports bill sent to him that would end lifetime listing of many sex offenders on public registry

[LA Times]

After an emotional debate, state lawmakers on Saturday gave final legislative approval to a controversial bill that would end the lifetime listing of many convicted sex offenders on a public registry in California.

The bill, which was shelved then revived, was sent to the governor on the last day of the legislative session with Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher (D-San Diego) calling it one of the most difficult votes she has cast.

“It’s not an easy thing to do, but sometimes we have to make hard votes,” Gonzalez Fletcher told her colleagues, adding that being a mom made it difficult to change a system aimed at tracking rapists and child molesters.

Read more

 

 

 

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.  
 
226 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Bet any amount the a hole hasn’t and won’t read it before signing it.

My experience of Jerry Brown over the years is he is not even close to being an Aholio. That said he is a career politician!
Anyone going to the CASOMB meeting this Thursday in Sacramento? Might be some interesting discussion on the new bill?

CASOMB Board Meetings
Date:
Thursday, September 21, 2017

Time:
9:30am – 3:00pm

Location:
Board of State and Community Corrections
2950 Venture Oaks Blvd
Sacramento, CA 95833

Not me..I have had it with the politicos..I am a non contact, non violent, no restitution due or paid, first time offender that is now a tier 3. The dangerous of the dangerous. They can all go fawk me as far as I am concerned. Or maybe they will…

Same here. Non violent, non contact, first and only time offense. Been free with no violations and off of supervision for roughly five yrs now. But thanks to the Static 99, I am dumped into tier 3 too. I am not published at the moment, no articles of me, so I am able to sustain a good job that barely pays for food, housing, transportation. But thanks to the dumb Static 99, my mistake at 24 yrs old will be published and I will be labeled as the worst. So CASOMB doesn’t deserve any of my time (I’m working on… Read more »

The only p people who will get off the register is them people who have no Static 99 score which is 10 thousand, Automaticlly, then the 20 thousand tiered 1 after petioning the court, that’s only 30 thousand there’s still 75 thousand & growing

I might try to make it.

I don’t know quite how to feel about this Bill; I put in a lot of prayer time, so I have to believe that God allowed this to pass. Now, deciphering the Bill is another thing…..I don’t know what Tier that I will be placed in, but I did have my case reduced down to a misdemeanor; I also had a “failure to register” dismissed, which may hinder my chances. The big question wondering if I have the patience to wait until 2021?

There’s a loop holes in the bill as soon has the Govenor signs the bill The next day a TRO! OTC ( temporary restraining order order to show cause will be filed in the federal court and it will claim the loophole I can’t say what the loophole is but I found it and I’m going to file a writ and I’m going to get this bill changed yes I am filing it pro per but I’m a paralegal and I know how to work the system

Did you run it by Janice? I mean, why not?

“Melendez objected to some of the crimes that would put offenders on a second tier, eligible for removal from the list after 20 years, which include rape by deception and lewd and lascivious behavior with a child under 14.”

So there it is 288 (a) tier 2.

Either way, by the time the Bill is effective, 20 plus years would have elapsed for me. Now, I do have a 288. but again, it was a wobbler and I had it reduced. Also, Arizona has a Tiered system in place, and while living there, I was a Level 1. category offender who had the privilege of not being placed on the registry, however, the law was recently amended and now all levels are placed on the registry.

Seems like 288(a)’s will be the high profile cases when it comes time to file a petition for removal. It feels like all that tried to amend this bill from the start wanted all the 288(a) moved to Tier 3.

Yeah like someone here said, if they put 288 (a)’s on the lifetime tier level the reduction in the registry would be too small to gain any savings. Unfortunately, 311’s became the scapegoats to get the thing passed. They don’t care about 288 (a)’s more than 311’s. We are commodities to be traded for political favors in their minds eye. It is like some kind of market in the disposessed. The currency is in denominations of political power. We are chattel.

Not necessarily. There is some gibberish in there about perpetrator being over a certain age. I’ll try to find the specifics. Also, multiple 288(a) offenses are definitely tier 3.

Multiple but it has to be a separate conviction date in other words repeat offender.

Maybe not, but I bet he knows exactly what’s in it and he may have insisted on it. Then again, maybe he would have signed SB 421. We can only guess.

“Because the registry is public, it also punishes people who have not committed new crimes for decades, including some who engaged in consensual sex, bill supporters argued.” Please note the word PUNISHES.

“PUNISHES” — That’s HUGE. I hope Janice takes note.

Hmm, now we do indeed have it in the legislative record as being punishment. It sure would be nice if courts would quite twisting themselves like contortionists to keep the regulatory lie going. *Everyone* sees it as punishment.

Hell yes on this!! Us low levels no posts, need and deserve to be off.

You keep mentioning “no posts” in your comments. What the heck is “no posts”?

I think “no posts” refers to registrants who currently are not listed on the Megan’s Law Website.

I think no posts means not on the Megan’s Law site.

As for a non Megan’s law offense automatically being low level, someone can still have a really horrible sounding conviction and not be listed.

No post conviction arrests, warrants, trouble, etc

He means he is not currently on the public website. There are many people on this site who misuse those two concepts. There is the registry, which everybody is on. And there is the public Megan’s Law website. A “No-Post” is a registrant who has a previously low level crime, and has managed to stay off the public website. Now that 290 PC has changed, thousands and thousands of no-posts just became the criminals of the century and will be tier three, plus public positing.

That would include me. Although, I will fall under tier 1, I’ve never been on the website (1998, single , misdemeanor 647.6 , no further violations or charges), but will somehow increase in dangerousness and now appear on the website. Makes no sense. And chihuahua keeps gloating and coming across as though he’s poking at others…this bill may be good for some, but personally, I’d rather continue registering if it meant that I would continue to be unlisted. The news rules will effect my life, and many others, in the worst way possible.

647.6, if I read that correctly and you were convicted in 1998, then you would be eligible for immediate removal once the Tiered Registry comes into effect so being publicized on the net might prove to be a moot point for you.

Hi JC…correct, but my fear is that since I’m in OC, I will be denied, as OC seems to be the hardest to get through…leaving me exposed in 2022. I have hope, but I also have fear.

When it comes time, move to SF or Sonoma County or somewhere much more liberal. You file with a local DA so get somewhere more accepting and build some resident history to avoid OC DA.

Aren’t we stuck filing in the county where it originated from? Otherwise, I’d gladly rent something on the side in order to establish residency somewhere else.

The new law says filed with the local DA. I am taking a plain reading of this to mean local to your current residence.

I know the old bill said both the county you were convicted in and with the county you currently reside. Not sure on this one.

And that’s where the confusion lies for me, ExPat. The original adjudication for my case was in Orange County. However, I transferred my case to San Francisco County. The state law reads: “Rule 4.530. Intercounty transfer of probation and mandatory supervision cases. Section g: Transfers – (3)Transfer is effective the date the transferring court orders the transfer. Upon transfer of the case, the receiving court must accept the entire jurisdiction over the case.” The word ENTIRE. So I’m presuming that when I file in Contra Costa County (where I now live), I would mark San Francisco as the court having… Read more »

I agree with Follow the $. Get out of OC and move to the Bay Area. That’s what I did. I was adjudicated in Orange County. After my release from county jail, I immediately moved to San Francisco and started my life anew. A new state law had just gone into effect stating that a county is mandated to release the entire case to the probationer’s new county of residence. My case and probation was transferred to San Francisco County and it was the SF courts that granted my early termination of probation, 17b and 1203.4.

I actually went back to originating county court for my 17(b) and 1203.4. guess I could have done it up here too.

This should be a huge part of a lawsuit somewhere against the Megan’s Law websites. Even if registry is “regulatory”, the fact that nearly 100% of us would rather register for life on a LE only registry than appear on the public site mean that part of it is clearly punitive and humiliating and violation of ex post and cruel and unusual.

I’d welcome to be part of such a lawsuit. I feel horrible for others who are listed, because just the thought of me having to be listed has enthralled my daily thoughts and added immense stress to my life. There is no doubt to its punishment effect.

This is public shaming and nothing more. It also provides a hit list along with photo and address to every psycho and vigilante directly to the front door of your home (if you can find housing at all). Just imagine if your wife answers that knock at the door instead of you and is shot. How exactly is the public registry keeping the public safer? Are they hoping that everyone on it is killed? Seems to be the same tactic they use in prison when the guards “look the other way” and allow the inmates to “teach a lesson” to… Read more »

SC couple plead guilty to killing sex offender, [and his] wife

Jeremy Moody and his wife, Christine Moody, appear before Judge Lee Alford Tuesday in a Union County courtroom. They pleaded guilty to to murder, kidnapping, first degree burglary and possession of a weapon during a violent crime and were sentenced to life in prison.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWzUdk4UCDM

Check out the comments.

The Moodys were arrested last week and charged with murder in the deaths of Charles Parker, 59, and his wife, Gretchen, 51. Both Parkers were shot and stabbed at their home in Union County.

Union County Sheriff David Taylor has said Gretchen Parker wasn’t specifically targeted but was killed because she was in the house.

Taylor has also said that Jeremy Moody confessed to the crime after his arrest, telling investigators they had arrested him just in time before he killed another sex offender.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-more-charges-in-killing-of-sc-sex-offender-wife-2013jul30-story.html

Now he has horns on his head and says God made him do it.

S.C. ‘skinhead’ said God told him to kill sex offenders, wanted conviction tossed out

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/latest-news/article156702649.html#storylink=cpy

You said it Tired of Hiding, prison “ethics” has bled out of the prisons and infected the whole damn population of the United States. We are a gang society, some are living in nice suburbs, some live in gated estates. They all want to protect their turf from the others.

This is from a Los Angeles article..
Updates from Sacramento »

“The second tier, which would allow removal from the registry after 20 years, includes those convicted of rape, force-able sodomy, and lewd and lascivious conduct with a child under 14, the crime Lindsay committed.”

So a rapist, someone who commits violent sodomy, or a person who actually had some type of sexual contact with a minor, just to name a few, are level two, but a person who proposed a meeting for sex over the internet with an under age girl gets level three???????? There’s some logic at work…..

Actually, Mike R. It DOES make sense that a person who arranges a meeting with an underage individual is Tier 3. That shows the person thought about sex with a minor, planned it, sought out someone one for it, made an attempt to commit unlawful sex with a minor but (unlike the now infamous Jared Fogle) was caught before engaging. A person who engaged in sex with a minor may not have intended to seek out a minor. “Victims” do lie about their age. You also have consenting adults where perhaps an individual has regrets and cries foul. Or is… Read more »

Um no..actually you have no idea what my situation was ,so I do not think you have any room to judge me like that without knowing the facts. I did not search for underage girls and was in fact on a adult website messaging thousands of women in my area. One under age girl messaged me back saying I just had a threesome on my birthday. It was late at night, I had been drinking a lil, and the next thing I knew I was talking away with her when she asked me if I wanted to have an escapade… Read more »

And what have you done to try and help yourself or others??? You probably sit on a computer and complain and put others down, and make judgments…I’ve spent the last two years preparing a motion that I filed in district court without an attorney, which may, or may not help thousands of people from suffering this demonic system that you think I should be on…What have you done to help?????????????Way out!!!!!!!!!!!

Wow, all I read were very general terms and never once did he address your particular circumstances.

Lighten up, Francis.

I don’t think NPS was referring to your situation, Mike r, since he doesn’t know you. He was simply pointing out the “logic” the framers of the bill might be using when they made that (terrible) decision to class your type of case as a tier 3. I have been on the registry for 22 years (public since Megan’s Law), but by moving out in the sticks, away from the public, and working for myself, I have had few problems until IML came along. I have permanent residence (‘green card’) in Mexico, but now I can’t go to my house… Read more »

Very well explained; although I plead guilty to a 288. wobbler misdemeanor, it is mentioned in the court documents that I more than likely did not initiate the relationship with the “so called victim” but does not have any priors, and will more than likely not reoffend. Unfortunately, the blind eye of the law only find relevance after the fact versus the teenaged girl who not only lied about her age, but told me personally that she was going to do whatever to be with me, and yet, I am treated like a predator. This was 20 years ago, and… Read more »

That is where I am confused…my 288(a) attempt was on the internet and with a cop not a child on the other end. But even at level 2 and the start of the bill I will be past the 20 years so now just have to find out how I can get off the registry under this bill

Mike r. Not everyone with the 288 (a) had sexual contact. If you were an 18-year-old dating a 14-year-old boyfriend girlfriend high school relationship that is lewd and lascivious acts. If there were sex involved, force, it would have another letter in front of it. So it’s really not applicable to compare apples with oranges. I do not agree that CP crime should be at three I am there with you. I think it’s ridiculous. Please don’t throw 288 a under the bus. Sodomy and rape those are different situations.

I have sent an email to the governor. Do not expect any response, but it released a little pressure( very little).

Anyone else notice how little media coverage this is getting?

I did. Fascinating isn’t it? I have no explanation for this.

SB 421 could have passed without too much backlash. The public was ready for change I think and many editorial boards supported it. Still very strange. Maybe some of the loudest vigilantes don’t know about it yet.

There are plenty ty of media types who would benefit from this bill and hold enough sway to keep it on the DL so it can sail through. Just a theory.

You want a trophy for sending the Governor a e-mail? A lot of people will be getting off, thousands, so yeah you might wanna change your mind and congratulate others who will benefit

@ Chi… : I suspect very, very few people will be able to get off the registry.

Chihuahua, That’s great that you will be off the registry. I, too, am one of the very, very few people that this bill will benefit, but I won’t be jumping up and down celebrating; I’m still rather skeptical. I have a 17b, 1203.4, and I’ve never been publicly listed. But I’ve learned that none of that matters. I still was fired from my job last month solely because of my RC status (my former boss stated this in writing), and this was despite my exemplary performance there. I’m currently developing a wrongful termination lawsuit. So you see, just because we… Read more »

I am sorry to hear you lost your job. My story is nearly the same but my employer was forgiving and generous enough to look past my transgression. I’ll root for you in your wrongful termination lawsuit which should be a slam dunk.

Thank you, Follow the $. I’m considering my firing a blessing in disguise. I was overworked and verbally abused by my tyrannical boss (think Mr. Spacely from the Jetsons; though even he has more empathy than my former boss). When you see 22 employees quit over the course of my tenure there, you know something is amiss. I’ve already reported her to the city of San Francisco for violating the Fair Chance Ordinance. I’ll report to the state next. Just getting all my ducks in a row. I’ve since found another position in my field. I have a Masters Degree… Read more »

NPS, do you sense that you are treated differently within the University since you have to register with the police on campus?

I am planning to go back to school but even online school requires that I divulge my registration requirements. These online schools are like on the other side of the nation, away from California (New York, Missouri, etc).

Not at all. I was treated very respectfully. I had registered at SF State when I was studying for my MA degree, and I was on probation at that time. The officer was very nice. Now I’m attending Cal State East Bay; again, the officer there was very respectful.

No one on campus knew of my status, and I was never treated any differently than someone who isn’t an RSO.

There are certainly advantages being in the Bay Area, NPS. When I registered with Campus Police in my central valley community college, my picture went up on the wall in the police station with all the other RCs. Not long afterward, our pictures were featured in the student newspaper.

Thank you NPS! great point and show of empathy for others; now I have a misdemeanor 288 and have been on the registry for 20 years, so I believe that I am a Tier 1. misdemeanor case.

Why start trusting newspaper articles now? Aren’t they largely responsible for the current registry? Are they more reliable than the language of the bill itself?

Take this, for example. And the comment went unanswered.

City repeals sex offender residency restrictions

http://www.hidesertstar.com/the_desert_trail/news/article_475dff34-98c3-11e7-b3c8-0b3b5d87502e.html?_dc=502173011143.16705

Time would be better spent answering each and every one of these alarmist stories and comments all over the state and country. But I suspect it will take a while for some to cool down enough to get to work, and that is understandable.

JANICE, If you are reading this, there are several people quoting you as stating that misdemeanor 647.6 will be excluded from internet disclosure. I doubt you’ve said that so you should set the record straight. There are quite a few people believing that. In the off chance you have stated that. You and everyone else should look at the new section 290.46(c)(1). It specifically names all Tier 2 as being disclosed but it also specifically mentions 647.6. The fact the statute mentions both Tier 2 and 647.6 means that are referring to both felony and misdemeanor convictions under that statute.… Read more »

She absolutely did state multiple times that her interpretation was that 647.6 misdemeanor would not be on the site.
That being said, I do think the wording explicitly states that 647.6 will be on the site in addition to Tier 2. The only reason some think otherwise is specifically due to Janice stating otherwise.

Hopefully this can get officially cleared up.

I’m not Janice, but it is not clear why there is a debate when the language is plain. “(2) (A) A tier two offender is subject to registration for a minimum of 20 years. A person is a tier two offender if the person was convicted of an offense described in subdivision (c) that is also described in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 or subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7, Section 285, subdivision (g) or (h)of Section 286, subdivision (g) or (h) of Section 288a, subdivision (b) of Section 289, or Section 647.6 if it is a second or subsequent conviction… Read more »

Double checking myself. This is the section that governs who is post/publication: SEC. 10. Section 290.46 is added to the Penal Code, to read: Where the confusion is: (c) (1) With respect to a person who has been convicted of the commission or the attempted commission of any of the offenses listed in, or who is otherwise described in, paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 290 and who is a tier two offender, and with respect to a person who has been convicted of the commission or the attempted commission of Section 647.6, the Department of Justice shall make… Read more »

You are correct that a second, subsequent conviction of 647.6 is tier 2.

So when you look at 290.46(c)(1) it states that tier 2 will be published AND 647.6.

Since a second and subsequent conviction of 647.6 is already a tier 2, it doesn’t make sense to list it again unless they are referring to the misdemeanor version of it.

Unless it was just to make sure it didn’t slip through the cracks and a subsequent conviction not be included in tier two.

@647.6 and KM / Janice: Both could be correct. The wording is confusing and unclear at best, but with all the last minutes amendments it could be mis-worded from what was intended. Second, Janice has been in contact with legislators/participants during the process but they could have changed it in the latest passed version. We can all assume this will be a top priority for ACSOL to clarify over the next few weeks on this final version. Until then, no one can be 100% certain — even the legislators that passed it! If a description/wording in this bill is different… Read more »

I think the point that KM is making is WHY is there even any specific mention of 647.6 if it’s clearly stated that one conviction of 647.6 is Tier 1 and multiple convictions is Tier 2. Since it’s clear when 647.6 is Tier 1 and clear when 647.6 qualifies for Tier 2 WHY is there a need to reference it specifically in the part about website publication in the part about Tier 2? It seems to only makes sense to include that part if it’s saying that while single convictions of misdemeanor 647.6 are classified as Tier 1 they are… Read more »

It is confusing, but why not just make it a tier two, period, if that was the intent? I don’t think a tier one 647.6 will be published, but it may take a court to confirm that given how convoluted it is. A 647.6 can be as simple as suggestive words spoken to a 17-year-old, and I don’t see it as serious and many other offenses. Can anyone point to exactly where tier one listings are published? I still cannot find it, and if tier one is not published, and a first offense of 647.6 is tier one, that would… Read more »

It doesn’t settle it. There is no mention of Tier 1 one being published. But it doesn’t say anywhere that Tier 1s aren’t published. So when reading 290.46(c)(1), its a provision that makes Tier 2 AND 647.6 published.

By what authority would the DOJ “make available” the tier one offenses? Could the DOJ say, well, the legislature did not tell us to “make available” those offenses, but they didn’t say we can’t, either, so let’s make them the same as Tier 3. Yes, I’m being factious, but the point is valid. Tiers 2 and 3 require the DOJ “make available” on the Internet certain information, but Tier 1 is not included, therefore the DOJ is not authorized to “make available” that information. No where is 647.6 designated a tier 2 unless there was a subsequent conviction. It is… Read more »

You are falling victim to a fallacy. The Requirement of DOJ to make information available and the grouping of certain offenses into Tiers are not linked. 290.46 directs DOJ as to whose information must be made public and the amount of information being made public. To simplify this, they rely on the Tiers defined in 290 to assign MOST violations to a specific category of disclosure. But they could have as easily written each offense out without even mentioning Tiers. The use of Tiers just takes less space. Just because you are Tier 1 doesn’t automatically mean exclusion from public… Read more »

That is how I am interpreting it. It is saying in a nutshell the disclosure provisions of that paragraph apply to Tier 2 registrants and registrants who violated 647.6. A single 647.6 is still Tier 1 but the law singles it out for disclosure along with the Tier 2 folks.

Exactly.

As a single, misdemeanor 647.6 offender, I’m very concerned with this. The wording scares me, but I’m trying to cling to the thought that perhaps they’re mentioning it this way to differentiate that you will be listed if you’re a tier 2 opposed to tier 1. The fact that it says AND and not OR, leaves it questionable. ‘AND’ could be interpreted as needing to meet the criteria of being a tier 2, while also having a 647.6, to actually be listed for that offense. If they’re listing tier 1 647.6 offenders, I would fully expect that to open up… Read more »

The comma before the AND leads me to believe they are publishing all 647.6 convictions. So much rests on that little comma

c) (1) With respect to a person who has been convicted of the commission or the attempted commission of any of the offenses listed in, or who is otherwise described in, paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 290 AND who is a tier two offender, AND with respect to a person who has been convicted of the commission or the attempted commission of Section 647.6 Both ANDs must be true. If it said, OR with respect to a person who has been convicted of the commission or the attempted commission of Section 647.6 Then that would single it out… Read more »

With respect to a person who has been convicted of the commission or the attempted commission of any of the offenses listed in, or who is otherwise described in, paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 290 and who is a tier two offender, and with respect to a person who has been convicted of the commission or the attempted commission of Section 647.6, the Department of Justice shall make available to the public via the Internet Web site his or her name and known aliases, a photograph, a physical description, including gender and race, date of birth, criminal history,… Read more »

It could be written like this: 647.6 is a tier three offense. Let’s back up. The entire section you quote above defines tier 2 by referencing paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 290. What is that? 290 (d)(2) = (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: (2) (A) A tier two offender is subject to registration for a minimum of 20… Read more »

But it is saying anyone who is Tier 2, and anyone who was convicted in the attempted violation or violation of 647.6.

Why do you say it is Tier 3? 647.6 single offense is Tier 1 as it isn’t defined in paragraph 2 or 3 of 290 (as long as it wasn’t serious or violent).

Why do you say it is Tier 3?

I was being facetious, alluding to we could write it any way we want and so could the DOJ. My bad.

I’m not following. Are you being facetious? 647.6 is specifically written to be a tier 1 or a tier 2 (for multiple convictions). We all agree that 647.6 is tier 2 if charged as a felony (more than 1 conviction) and we all agree if it is charged as a felony you will be published on the internet. What people are failing to see is the specific mentioning of 647.6 in PC290.46(c)(1). Felony 647.6 is already included in tier 2. The ONLY reason to include it again is to refer to the misdemeanor version of it. That is why I’m… Read more »

And I think it was their legislative intent to cover all bases with 647.6. The Tier 2 language covers all felony with priors assigned to Tier 2 and then referencing the specific PC covers all misdemeanor and non-violent felony violations that coincidentally are Tier 1. They want all people who violated 647.6 whether felony or misdemeanor to be published.

Let’s break this down for everybody trying to figure out where they land. 290(c) lists all the offenses that require registration. 290(d) defines the different tiers 290(d)(1)(A) defines tier tier 1, and misdemeanors and not serious or violent felonies listed in 667.5(c) or 1192.7(c) are tier 1 if they are not found in tiers 2 or 3. 647.6 is not listed as a serious or violent felony in 667.5(c) or 1192.7(c). 290(d)(2) defines Tier two, which also includes listings in the serious or violent felonies in 667.5(c) or 1192.7(c) PLUS Section 285 286 (g) or (h) 288a (g) or (h)… Read more »

@Not Really, If that logic is true then this paragraph only applies to Tier 2 offenders who are also convicted of violating or attempted violation of 647.6 thus narrowing the scope to a tiny subset of offenders meeting both requirements. I find that very unlikely. The most logical reading is KM’s. Disclosure for Tier 2 and disclosure for 647.6. The comma before “and” as well as the additional insertion of “with respect to a person” means they are two separate conditions not tied to each other. Similar to “with respect to a person with black hair, and with respect to… Read more »

@Follow the $

I’m reading it requiring 647.6 with a prior being in tier 2 and therefore publishable. That is because without a prior it is tier 1.

What you aren’t seeing is that just because someone is Tier 1, it doesn’t mean they are not published. In this case, it is specifically stated that a violation of 647.6 is published regardless of the tier. Most tier 1 will not be published but 290.46 clearly states that 647.6 will be subject to name and zip code disclosure. The law should be plainly read. They appeared to have singled out this one Tier 1 offense for publishing.

That’s pretty much my reading of it too.
I hope we can get official word from Janice and Co. about it to corroborate one way or another so we can prepare.

I just read it again and can see this time how you arrive at your interpretation. Assuming it is to be published, when will publication end? Since it is not officially included in tier 2 unless with a prior, the 20 years can come and go without the option to get of the registry. So even if this misdemeanor is treated as a tier 2 for purposes of publication, I see nothing that provides for petitioning to be relived of the duty to register after x period of time. How do you square that under your interpretation? I just read… Read more »

@Not Really,

Since it is Tier 1, publication will continue for at least 10 years or longer depending on how long it takes to get removed after that period ends.

To speak realistically, even if the wording is NOT meant to include 647.6 Tier 1s in the public site it is so confusing that for all intents and purposes it might as well be.
Any LE will interpret it in the same way KM is.

I do hope Janice can give some input one way or the other at some point when time allows.

She most definitely did comment to it in another thread. With there being so many threads on this matter recently, however, I’m not sure which one the comment is in. My concern though, is did she comment on it with the latest worded bill or was it with a prior version. At the time of her comment, she made it clear that tier 1 647.6 would not be made public. Again, was that with the current amended form or prior, is the question.

She did make the statement AFTER that amended version that is causing confusion was made.

Take it easy Mike, I think he was just trying to explain to you not criticize. Sounds like you’ve made the best of your situation, I can see how you’re proud of who you are. It’s not easy to survive our label.

+1

MikeR…Calm down. I wasn’t judging you or anyone. I just made a general comment about what those codes entail. In fact, I specifically said, “a person.” That doesn’t mean I’m talking about you. Enough with the projecting and learn to separate yourself from everyone’s comments. It isn’t always about you. Clearly I touched a nerve with you. Perhaps it is YOU who needs to clear your demons because no one else, myself included, has not taken so much offense on a general comment that isn’t attacking anyone. P.S. I’m not a guy. Regardless, you need more level-headed people commenting on… Read more »

Well said, NPS.

Great news! If your political savvy, this approach was the best idea! This is Governor Brown’s last year in office and he is unable to run again! If we had sent this proposal next year etc, this could have went on for years!

Please advise. I had a PC 243.4 (a) Sexual Battery (adult) from 1997 (reduced to misdemeanor) expunged (LA) County/summary probation. I believe I’m a Tier 1?

Thank you and thank Janice and Frank Lindsey!

I also believe amendments will be made and this law will begin sooner

Really? I don’t hold out any hope for substantive amendments. There will be some to clean and clarify language but there is no way IMHO this goes effective earlier. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the state asking for continued extensions because they are not ready.

Also, ACSOL as an organization (and I assume Janice and Frank individually) did not support or lobby for this bill so thanking them for this wreck of a bill seems odd.

Lmfao @mike.R dude we didn’t need to know all that NPS just stated some facts there is a big difference so chill man save all that for 2021 when you get to tell it to the DA and the judge ..

+1

So you get a extra year for misdemeanor failure to register and extra 3 years for felony failure to register is that to be applied retroactively or is it applied only to the people who failure to register pass 2021 ..??

I never thought this bill would pass at such a late stage but it did. Before that I prayed to God that it would pass and, once again, I have learned to be careful what you wish for. I got what I wanted and now I’m screwed. For my 311, I was first a 1, then a 2, and now a 3. I’m pissed as hell. Now I think that God and the universe has played a cruel trick on us. I can hate God and hate everybody but what good will I do? Having survived what we all have… Read more »

I was a first time offender convicted of Felony Possession (311.11a) and the exceptionally conservative judge sent me to prison. Because I received a prison sentence, I can never petition for a reduction to a misdemeanor. So as a first time offender for a single count of possession I will be lumped in with all of the child rapists and endure this for a lifetime. It seems unfair that any Judge has that much discretion in terms of their ability to pass sentencing. It also seems arbitrary and inconsistent that the law can treat one person one way and another… Read more »

I would agree that there are differences and it is often unfair, but how many of the public know what those differences are? We are all lumped together and the lines are blurred between offenses. As much trouble as we have understanding it, how is someone who never looks up the Penal Code sections going to distinguish between them? In fact it is probably impossible and so it is much easier to just equate everyone. Maybe the bottom line here is that everyone is grouped with the murderers that raped and killed children. That is what Marc Lunsford always argued… Read more »

Same story for me. I also had the joy of being given $1 million bail because the judge for my bail hearing’s pet peeve was Child Porn. The bail schedule for my charges was supposed to be $80,000. Every time I see on the news that some murderer has a $1 million bail, I get pissed off all over again. I’ve seen murderers have less bail than me. At least I knew from that point on that there was no point in going to trial, I had no shot at a fair trial in that courtroom. I bet in about… Read more »

Wow that’s nuts! They initially charged me off the cuff with 288 (convicted charges were 311.4a and 647.6a, the crime was upskirting a minor) and set bail for $100,000. And I thought I got screwed on that. But $1m for possession? Wow!

I apologize if I took that personally NPS. It just seemed as if you were implying that was my case. I have taken a lot of verbal abuse from people on here so I just assumed..Even still, no one deserves to be on a gov hit list. It isn’t right that a person who attempted to meet with an under age girl should be on the same list as I repeat, Philip Gorido,rapist, repeat habitual offenders that are violent, forcible sodomy, 288(a), and so on. These people are just as culpable as the ones on the sting operations or the… Read more »

So are you now lumping 288 (a) with the Phillip garrido’s, repeat violent habitual offenders and forcible sodomizers??

who are you lumping together Steve ? ?? , how much time did you do ? that’s what I want to know , and how many years ago was it ? sence you seem to know so much about who should be stuck in what ever box according to offences you find distasteful , and who is better than who ,

I think steve was making the opposite point. You can’t just say someone belongs in tier 3, just because the offense sounds awful. I read NPS as saying that we should read the whole book and not just look at the cover. I think we are all kind of fed up by having our character summed up by whatever we were convicted of.

Thank you Tim.

288 (a) no prison, work realease. 20 years ago for the record.

@ Tim Moore ,,, I can read what steve is saying loud and clear , so is it going to turn into a gang mentality on hear ? are we going to shame each other now ? I see names up here that I my self have seen say some pretty scathing remarks about different level 3 crimes ,while minimizing their own , many that never did any real time , I my self paid in full and then some , only to now 30+ years have other RC’s acting like a bunch of cut throats , saying stuff with… Read more »

Wrong Living. When you calm down read below my post to miker.

Well, I agree with you there. Bad enough that the state considers us numbers, without us doing that to each other. If I did that I am sorry. I judge my own offense to be bad, not by any measure against anyone else’s, but because of the harm it did to people I cared about, including myself. I just do what I can to not betray them or myself again. Other than that what has been has been. You won’t find that or what it took you to remain offense free for 30 years in any discussion of this registry… Read more »

It is counterproductive to play the virtue signaling game of comparing one’s own offense favorably to others’, especially when so many people’s convictions may have been unjustly alleged or when elements of actual coercion or violence were absent but unreflected in the charges. There are certainly people here whose charges are entirely justified and whose actions were reprehensible but I don’t know who those people are nor does it make any sense to congratulate myself at their expense within the context of this forum especially as this organization has a specific function of reform of all sex offender laws. It… Read more »

Judging is best left in the courtroom. There also should be judged whether registration should be imposed based on the same factors that apply to other punishment: whether it can prevent re-offense, whether it is counter to rehabilitation, whether it is a just retribution to fit the crime, whether it serves any other legitimate purpose in each individual case.
Like you, I am dismayed we are playing the same game the legislature plays of trying to determine guilt simply by comparing past offense and after the fact.

What precisely constitutes a “felony CP” offense under California law?

As of 2014, ALL violations of 311 are felony.

Ours was federal (2252A(a)(5)(B). Although I understand that the cross over would be 311.11 I’m confused…Because we also have no Static-99R. I’m thinking were going to be in that 2-year limbo status.

Static-99 isn’t supposed to be used on people who didn’t have a direct victim, like those guilty of just possession. But yes, they’ll likely still stick you into that limbo while they “investigate” where to place you. Tier 1 311.11 people may very well not be able to petition to get off until 2023.

Those with CA conviction of misdemeanor 311 are tier 1 should be eligible after 10 years. If you have out of state or federal charges, you will either be in limbo or Tier 3 as the state will most likely lump you with the felony 311 people.

When the new law is signed by Gov Moonbeam how soon can it be taken to the supreme court to be declared unconstitutional in California ?? Is there a cost that we can all contribute to offset for this organization

So when does the clock start? When a registrant is sentenced? When a registrant is released from jail or prison? Or when a registrant completes probation or parole?

Also, does anyone know what tier a person convicted of 288a(b)(1) would fall into on the registry? And where can I find it in the bill? I’m currently not on the website. I have a feeling I’m going to be on there in 2021.

Thanks in advance.

Pursuant to the new PC290(e) The minimum time period for the completion of the required registration period in tier one or two commences on the date of release from incarceration, placement, or commitment, including any related civil commitment on the registerable offense. The minimum time for the completion of the required registration period for a designated tier is tolled during any period of subsequent incarceration, placement, or commitment, including any subsequent civil commitment, except that arrests not resulting in conviction, adjudication, or revocation of probation or parole shall not toll the required registration period. The minimum time period shall be… Read more »

I’m sure 288a(b)(1) is tier one cause that’s above the age of 14 and you’re already a no post-low level.

It doesn’t say when the time begins. For a CoR, it’s release from custody, so it could be the same for petitioning to end registration.

288a(b)(1) is tier 1. It is not among any of the codes listed for Tier 2 or Tier 3. It’s also a wobbler offense. If you haven’t already, file a 17b to reduce it to a misdemeanor.

Thank you guys for the information.

In regards to having my felony being reduced to a misdemeanor, I saw an attorney after I finished my parole and he said because I went to prison I can’t have my felony reduced.

Thanks again.

@Double A: It appears 288a(b)(1) would be Tier 1 so 10 years to petition and not posted on the website.

I had been accused of a 288a p.c. since August 14, 1989, to August 14, 2017, making it 28 years ago; in which I had to do my yearly registration 5 days within my birthday which October 28, 2017. In order that I won’t be blamed for failure for non-registration as like I was accused of this non-registration back in the year of 10/2010 and they were thinking about giving me 2 years for this untrue issue. Will I receive some kind notice that I do not have to do my yearly sex registration, taking this to the police department… Read more »

1. This new law doesn’t go into effect until Jan 1, 2021.

2. No tiers automatically fall off. You have to petition the court for an order to stop registering.

Correct me if I’m incorrect. I see that based on SB384 a misdemeanor conviction of 311.11(a) possession of CP would be tier 1 and not published on the Megan’s law website. I have a question though that I can’t figure out. although seemingly it will be great to no longer have to register in my case I can petition in 2024 (10 years after conviction) if I understand correctly (I did not serve jail time), however seems this will still not allow an expungement via 1203.4 because the law was changed in January of 2014 to include 311.11(a) on the… Read more »

Were you convicted of misdemeanor CP before 2014? If so you are eligible for 1203.4 on constitutional grounds (I know because I got it done on a conviction in 2012).

As for the background checks, as long as you are registering it will be visible to employers. Not necessarily the conviction but the registry info will show.

Unfortunately my case began in 2011 and I signed a plea deal in late 2014. So after the change.

What tier is 288.2(a)(1)? I don’t understand how to read these things.

Currently a felony but as it’s a wobbler it will get reduced asap.

Would I be listed on the website? I’m currently not listed but if I will all of a sudden pop up in 2021 that might change my plans to buy a house with my wife. Might not be able to live together anymore.

Thanks.

According to the new bill, it is a tier 3. If it is a misdemeanor, it will be tier 1. If you didn’t serve a state prison sentence, you can file a 17b to reduce it to a misdemeanor.

As for buying a house, if you qualify, do it. Don’t let the registry stop you from pursuing your right to happiness. I just bought my house last year and had zero issues. No one in my neighborhood knows I’m an RC since I am not subject to public disclosure.

oops, I meant to say don’t let it stop your right to pursue happiness.

Yep I served no prison time. About to reach the halfway point of 5 year probation and as soon as I can I will try to end it and also reduce it to misdemeanor and expungement.

I was lucky enough to keep my job and so all I need to qualify for a house is to save the down payment. This whole thing wiped out our savings so we’ve had to start from scratch pretty much.

Thanks for the reply.

If a person has a wobbler do you have to wait until after probation to reduce it to a misdemeanor or could you do it while on probation?

@JG No, you do not have to wait until completion of your probation. Here is the text of 17b: (b) When a crime is punishable, in the discretion of the court, either by imprisonment in the state prison or imprisonment in a county jail under the provisions of subdivision (h) of Section 1170, or by fine or imprisonment in the county jail, it is a misdemeanor for all purposes under the following circumstances: (1) After a judgment imposing a punishment other than imprisonment in the state prison or imprisonment in a county jail under the provisions of subdivision (h) of… Read more »

My P.O. said he agrees that I should have a misdomeanor reduction, but said that it is policy for probation not to recommend, just not oppose. How can probation help?

That is correct. The probation cannot support, but they can say they will not oppose and/or can make a recommendation to the court to grant the 17b. (I noticed that in my comment below, I said, “support”. Pardon my Freudian slip. While they cannot actually state “support” essentially they are supporting you by making a recommendation.) Probation can help in that they write a formal document stating the following: 1. You have remained in compliance and paid all fines/fees 2. You have no violations 3. You are making an effort to improve yourself, i.e. employment, education, therapy etc. 4. Your… Read more »

You have to finish probation first. However, you can terminate probation early. You have to first complete at least half of your probation, be sure all fines are paid, that you completed their treatment program, and that you have support of the probation department. However, you must have a very good reason why you want to terminate early.

I successfully terminated my probation early. The judge immediately set another hearing for the 17b and 1203.4, which was 30 days later. The judge granted those motions, too.

JG ~ I believe in order to file for a 17b ( reduction to misdemeanor ) and expungement you will have to have fulfilled all terms of probation, BUT I think you can file for early termination of probation after the 1/2 mark. Some say to wait longer, but it might be worth checking into. I believe record gone deals with early termination of probation as well as reduction and expungement. They offer a money back guarantee on the ladder, not sure about early termination.

As I have stated, my case was reduced down to a misdemeanor because I discovered that my 288 was considered a wobbler. I am not the lawyer but I believe that 10 years is sufficient. If you have a wobbler, why didn’t your lawyer fight to have you plead to the lower charge, (wobbler)? However, I would take my chances and submit the paperwork as soon as possible; If you are arrested for a 290. failure to register as a felon, it is a felony on your record versus it being a misdemeanor under the wobbler charge.

“If you have a wobbler, why didn’t your lawyer fight to have you plead to the lower charge, (wobbler)?” Yep… I plead no contest to the felony so that’s what I have (until it’s reduced). But I could’ve had the misdemeanor. Crazy thing is that the misdemeanor 288.2(a)(1) is NOT required to register, only the felony is. I would’ve avoided the registry. Why couldn’t I fall off the registry if I get it reduced and expunged? I think in my case the DA really wanted me to register, and I really wanted to avoid jail time (can’t support my family… Read more »

Can a felony 288(a) be reduced to a misdemeanor if no state prison time, only jail?

No. It’s a straight felony.

Regarding 288, I found this article but did not have enough time to interpret…maybe someone here can look into this. I will later but have to get to work.

https://www.greghillassociates.com/expungement-available-for-attempted-sex-offense-pc-288.html

Yes, that would appear to be correct. This discussion has been had here before, someone here actually got an expungement for an attempted 288(a).

An expungement under 1203.4 is impossible for the COMMISSION of a violation of 288(a). It is possible for an ATTEMPT.

In theory, one even can get a Certificate of Rehabilitation as long as the conviction is dismissed under 1203.4. However, that does not terminate the registration requirement, as 290.5 specificaly excludes a violation of PC 288(a) – and that includes BOTH commission and attempt – from relief from registration.

adding to my comment above – while attempted 288(a) can be expunged under 1203.4, it cannot be reduced to a misdemeanor under 17(b), regardless of the sentence. It is, as mentioned above, a straight felony.

But that language in 290.5 about attempted will expire.

(c) This section shall remain in effect only until July 1, 2021, and as of that date is repealed.
SEC. 12. Section 290.5 is added to the Penal Code, to read:

Stuff about tiers.

Here is the case he cites: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1661653.html This appeal presents a single question of statutory construction:  whether a conviction for attempted lewd or lascivious acts on a child under 14 constitutes “any violation of [Penal Code] Section 288,” which prohibits lewd or lascivious acts on a child under 14, for purposes of Penal Code section 1203.4, subdivision (b).1  We agree with our colleagues in the Fourth District that it does not.   Accordingly, we affirm the superior court’s order granting defendant Anthony Joseph Marinelli’s section 1203.4 motion for leave to withdraw his guilty plea and dismissing Marinelli’s conviction. Decided: March… Read more »

Interesting. A Google search of that case also turns up the longest documented case of gang stalking a RC in the history of the Internet.

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/kenwood-ca/TP4IC3GATQBE1AGOS/p417?print=1

It started with the Perverted Justice/Dateline Petaluma sting and is still going strong.

I have a 288.2(b) and 288(a) and both have been reduced and expunged.

Would that put me at tier 2? Can’t find a lawyer that will even look into this….

Do you mean 288a?
288(a) cannot be reduced though it can be expunged.

If you have 288.2(b) reduced and expunged and a 288a reduced and expunged, then you’re Tier 1.
If you have 288.2(b) reduced and expunged and a 288(a) expunged, then you’re Tier 2.

What if a 288(a) was expunged but the judge made a mistake?

Where did the judge make a mistake?
A 288(a) can be expunged. It’s just expunged as a felony.

It was also reduced to a misdemeanor

I am a 288.4(b) no victim, no contact, sting. I have read and reread the bill so many times my head cannot take any more and I cannot figure what tier I would be in. Who is suppose to be the entity that will be telling us what tier we would be put in? And when would this take place? 2021 or sooner?

YES! Who?

So let’s see: 1. We are marked domestically via the national website, as well as any other internet site that feels it’s their duty to ” protect ” the public. 2. We are marked internationally via I.M.L. to “protect” other nations against us. 3. We are banned from most public spaces in most states. 4. Our families are harrassed, threatened, and verbally abused. 5. Many of us are refused decent employment or even banned from our jobs, which have little or nothing to do with our offense. 6. We have developed deep and serious emotional issues, not because of our… Read more »

Steve I wasn’t stating that 288(a) should be lumped in with the Giridos, I was just pointing out that, in my opinion and according to the penal codes, it is more serious then a attempted 288(a), and a 288.2. 288(a) is considered by law a violent offense, which I do not believe it should be unless there was actual violence or threats of violence, but it is… I do not want anyone in any tier, registries do not work, their unconstitutional, their cruel and unusual punishments, and a host of other negative issues and impacts. But if the must, they… Read more »

Hey Miker, listen I get it. I think it is completely unfair for non-contact first time to be placed in 3 which is what I think is happening to you. Total BS. But I think none of us should be throwing around everyone else’s convictions and making comparisons. I am of the belief that the penal code in front of most of our name’s are just that numbers. Everyone’s case is different everyone’s reason as to why they got into trouble is different. Hell in my case the prosecutor wanted to give me a misdemeanor that was non-registrable at the… Read more »

I will be consulting with Chance Oberstein in regards to the misdemeanor 647.6 if they will be publicized in the internet. I will keep you all updated soon.

This is wonderful news! Surreal! I keep hearing people complain about attempted child molestation or contacting a minor via the internet? I think that might be PC 288? No idea. I’m not going to judge you, but go onto the OC DA cases in the news/headlines! They give out 25/60 etc for certain child molestation cases! I’m sure that wasn’t the 1st time you attempted or ? Now, just be thankful you didn’t have or make contact! Be thankful for that!

Is my son a 311.11 …his offense like many of you in this group was one count of possession of CP. He was arrested in 2008 and served six years. He is now approaching three years of a 10 year supervised release. His offense was federal. This is what always confuses me. Yes, it is a federal offense. But he was living in California when he was arrested, and living in California now, with me. He is working. It was only offense of any kind ever. He was a college history prof when he was arrested…10 years. Married, divorced, engaged… Read more »

Patsy, I feel your confusion. My boyfriend has a very similar situation. Being federal makes it soooo confusing. His plea was a 2252A(a)(5)(B). Someone told me that the equivalent for the State (for Megan’s list purposes) is a 311.11. He is required to file on Megan’s List. So, with all these changes the only thing I’m pretty certain of is that he will be put in a Tier 3. But, he doesn’t have a Static 99R so I’m thinking he will get kicked into that 2-year limbo tier while they figure out where he belongs? He did 48 months in… Read more »

Hi Patsy, I am neither a legal scholar or an attorney so please do not take what follows as 100% applicable for your son. This is simply what I can tell you from experience having a similar case to your son. 18USC (United States code) subsection 2252A(a)(5)(B) is one section of US code 18 that describes cp related offenses. I am not sure if it is specifically possession of cp, but within section 2252A is the federal possession statue. On your son’s judgment and commitment order it will list the exact subsection of federal code your son broke. California has… Read more »

ab, Your response about the FEDERAL SORNA registration guidelines ( and they are really only guidelines as the FEDs don’t have an actual registration location/scheme of their own, they only rely on the states to do their dirty work ) are not fully accurate. I offer this as clarification to the blog. Here is a link to guidelines produced by the FED’s “SMART” office of sex offender management: https://ojp.gov/smart/pdfs/faq_sorna_guidelines.pdf Here is a snip of above as a relevant part about reducing the recommended registration time to only 10 years for Federal Tier 1 offenders: “31. What is the minimum required… Read more »

I did something I rarely do, and that is E-MAILED THANK YOU’s to Assemblymembers Gonzalez-Flecher and Low for getting this bill through the Assembly, and to Senator Weiner for sponsoring it (including doing the “gut and amend” process that brought it back from the dead!). I now wonder if there is a way to challenge local law enforcement in their “compliance checks” on 290 registrants who have LONG SINCE BEEN DISCHARGED from probation or parole! It is an OBSCENE VIOLATION of a registrant’s 4th Amendment right to privacy for law enforcement to do this, and an even BIGGER violation when… Read more »

I hope so. I don’t buy the argument that law enforcement has a right to detain people to verify their registration. I see it is similar to police stopping someone to just verify they have a license. That is illegal, at least in California. They need some probable cause, even if it is a broken tail light. When someone comes to your door and bangs on it for several minutes, any reasonable person would have to take some time from whatever she is doing to deal with that. Essentially, you are being detained, even if for a minute or two.… Read more »

Compliance check is about one thing: overtime. Local law enforcement can get an easy compliance check grant and pay for lots of overtime on the easiest gig going. They can even get some positive news coverage sometimes. Your tax dollars at work.

If you would have been to the September ACSOL meeting in San Diego you would have gotten the inside scoop on this. Gonzales-Fletcher is the one who killed the bill. She is not for helping anyone but her husband and herself. Governor Brown pushed for it, that is why Weiner gutted it and resurrected it in the current form. It looks bad now, but at least it is possible to amend it.

Not something I wanted to see and they even added the newly passed bill SB348

Previously registered sex offender caught photographing little girls in a park
http://www.vvng.com/previously-registered-sex-offender-caught-photographing-little-girls-park/

When did taking photographs in public places become illegal for someone on the Registry?
On what authority did the outraged party goers seize his cellphone?
How were law enforcement able to secure search warrants for his home and office?

He may well have been exercising poor judgment but I can’t see that there was a basis for either an arrest warrant or a search warrant. My guess is that he gave an interview to the police in which case he was doubly foolish.

He needs a good lawyer.

Here is another report that claims 311 will be able to get of the registry after 10 years under the bill.

http://ktla.com/2017/09/18/man-who-was-removed-from-sex-offender-registry-arrested-again-on-suspicion-of-child-pornography-in-fontana/

I think some LE are in the mood for a media campaign.

Of course, in fact to be effective it doesn’t even have to be true, it only has to be believed, which it will by people who already believe it. Don’t panic. Nothing here is new. It it a logical fallacy to assign a quality of one in the group to the whole group. That is how this whole public registry thing came about. Besides, no one knows if he had still been on the registry, he would not have been caught taking pictures of kids. The registry has proven, in general, to be an ineffective deterent. Individual exceptions to the… Read more »

I’d like to know what he was convicted of before. Sadly, this will surely add validate cp tier 3 garbage.

It’s surprising to see someone who was granted a COR re-offending. This certainly will not help our cause especially with this coming out of FONTANA, CA. Of course the article misstates the new Bill SB348 by stating it “will only require offenders convicted of crimes like possession of child porn and child annoying to register for 10 or 20 years”.

Other news outlets are reporting it. The little blurb on SB 384 put out by the San Bernardino authorities (surprise!) fails to mention under SB 384 he would still be registered.

How do we know if there was any actual porn involved in this current case?

I created a PDF that has a note to all the codes copied and pasted from the leg site.

For example, 187 and hover over the note and the entire Penal Code 187 pops up.

It took a while to go through all of them and now I’m not sure what to do with it. Is it something some here would want?

@Not Really:
You could post it anonymously at https://gofile.io/. The instructions for uploading are pretty easy and straightforward, and you can even have the document expire on a certain date.

Anyone interested can download the pdf from mega. It’s pretty big for a pdf, but it is searchable.

Today’s Law As Amended.pdf
https://mega.nz/#!8y5HjDKb

Let me know if it doesn’t work.

Uploaded to gofile too

Your download link : https://gofile.io/?c=vu2nkA

The gofile won’t work for me and the short mega link doesn’t work either. This is the only one that does.

Today’s Law As Amended.pdf https://mega.nz/#!8y5HjDKb!6qPh0Fwk_WZRrmxeZ9Bgbu6YQO3UyLOTs1zLMBZKMLo

Is it just me, or do others see a certain irony that it’s posted to a site (mega.nz) that is phonetically similar to “Megan’s”? 🙂

It’s just you. 🙂 BTW, thanks for pointing out gofile. I’d been looking for something like that. It uploads and downloads all right to/from there, but the pdf wouldn’t open for some reason after download. Is it encrypted?

@Not Really:
For some reason, the PDF on gofile downloads with a file size of 0 bytes. Sounds like operator error. 🙂 You’re quite welcome about the gofile suggestion. I stumbled across it, and love the ease and anonymity.

It sounds like a lot of work and yes, I would like it. How to proceed?

I suppose it is played under wishful thinking that arguing your case here is somehow going to influence the course of the dialogue in a positive way that will obtain relief for yourself or anyone else. Besides being a waste of time, that path of argument only ignites resentment from others who claim “you are throwing others under the bus to save yoursef.” Then instead of creating cohesion and unity of purpose, which we really need as a movement, it hands our opposition the means to divide and conquer.

I was convicted in Michigan in 2001 of misdemeanor possession of CP. My question is, as the law is currently written, where would I fall as an out-of-state registrant with a misdemeanor CP conviction?

One quick question: I was convicted of one count of possession of cp. I was given a 90 county jail sentence and 3 years probation. All probation fines etc were complete 2 years ago. My conviction I believe was a wobbler. If and only if I have understood the new law I can go and get my conviction possibly reduced to a misdemeanor and then I would be off in 10 years? And does anyone know that if I get a reduction to a misdemeanor does that mean that I will not be eligible for a COR

Thank you

My situation is EXACTLY the same. I have read some comments that say only felonies get COR, although that doesn’t make sense to me. I did ask both my phsyco, my p.o., and a lawyer. I got no definitive answer from any of them. 3 people who deal in this area for a living, and no one knew! Amazing. I personally am going for reduction. If you go for COR and SB 4 whatever goes into effect, you will be tier 3 and not eligible for COR unless it is changed. At least that is my reading of it. Let… Read more »

No. CoR doesn’t care whether its a felony or misdemeanor. In fact, certain felonies do not interact well with CoR/290.5 and will not relive you of the duty to register if you have them (647.6 felony as well as some 288 and others). You can see the current list of codes that will NOT grant relief with the CoR here. As you can see, some are straight codes while others refer to felonies only.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=290.5.

311.11 lives in two worlds right now. If your CONVICTION was prior to 2014, you can get an expungment. If you’re conviction was in 2014 or later, then, unfortunately, you cannot get an expungment. But I believe you can still get a 17b reduction which currently would move you from tier 3 to tier 1. This only applies to those granted probation. If you were sentenced to prison, you cannot get an expugment or a reduction. Felony or misdemeanors doesn’t matter for CoR. Either can technically get the CoR. However, CoR itself does not relive you of the duty to… Read more »

Hi, AlexO,

Would you please provide detailed info on how 311.11, if convicted before 2014, can get expunged. My friend’s conviction was in 2013, and he is looking to get a 17b reduction to misdemeanor. However, he spoke with 2 separate California lawyers recently who said that 311 is absolutely non-expungeable until the laws change. Your help in providing this expungement info would be helpful. Thanks.

A lot of lawyers are saying this off the cuff without actually looking into it. Convictions prior to 2014 are grandfathered in as 311.11 wasn’t moved to the no-expungment list until 2014. Keep in mind that 1204.3 and 17b can only be granted for those who were granted probation and successfully completed supervision without violations (if you had violations then its still possible but harder to do as you now have to convince the judge that your oops isn’t a sign that you’ll continue messing up, so a good lawyer will be needed). If you’re good to go with all… Read more »

Searching: the attorney’s he spoke with are likely incorrect. Sad how often they don’t know what they are talking about. If your friend took a plea deal and was sentenced before Jan 1, 2014 he can get it expunged (assuming he did less than 1-year in jail I believe). Have him contact recordgone.com I was arrested in 2012 and took a plea deal in 2013. Recordgone got me an early termination from probation, 17b reduction, and expungement. Check this out: http://www.recordgone.com/california/expungement-involving-constitutional-issues/

Thank you, AlexO and MS. The information you both have provided has been so helpful. AlexO, my friend was convicted in March of 2013 with probation only and no jail time; likened to your own experience then, he should be able to petition for 17b and 1204.3, and be granted the reduction and expungement, correct? MS, thank you for the recordgone.com info and link. I will inquire further with them. I do agree that it would definitely be prudent to engage a lawyer to ensure matters are handled correctly. Again, I am truly appreciative and thank you both for your… Read more »

bill, your offense is a wobbler (felony treated like a misdemeanor/you did county time). You can definitely get the charge reduced to a misdemeanor pursuant to 17B. I personally filed the paper work on my own and expunged it later! You can typically go onto the courts Website your going to file the offense and download and print out the paperwork and file it with the court clerk! It’s going to take a little work etc, but you can do it!!

Like all of you my parents taught me many things in life one of the most important things they taught me was this……if someone hits you….you hit them back…..I have no intention on letting the CA legislature hit me and I won’t hit them back. You see people only get away with what you as a person allow them to get away with I will not lay down for these life,family,and, freedom destroying politicians who put zero rational thought into these oppressive laws.Take my case for example I was convicted of 1 misdemeanor which is now in tier 3…..? Tier… Read more »

Well, I’m really sad about this bill getting to the Governor’s desk. The only way to abolish the registry is to have lots of people on it. More people…….more power. If people come off of it and the numbers decrease, then our chances of ever getting rid of this TRASH REGISTRY will be weak. Sorry but I hope the governor doesn’t sign it.

So, for the people who will benefit and possibly get off the registry, you’re saying you’d like them to continue suffering then? You’re against the public registry, but want people to stay on it anyway…that’s contradictory, no?

This bill will help me, as I’m sure it will help many others who take the initiative. Although I’m currently in the process of applying for the CoR, the bill only reinforces my chances of the CoR being granted, as the Court will have to acknowledge that if my petition for the CoR is denied, I can simply petition for a review with the DA once the bill is enacted. I’m confident the CoR will be granted, which means I will no longer have to register. Made a sex tape with a 17-year-old girlfriend when I was 20. Misdemeanor 311.4.… Read more »

Wow, I’m appalled by some of the rhetoric I’ve read! Ie: have lots of people on it? Minor crime? You guys are truly self centered! I’m no innocent bystander, but I’ve worked hard to get my plea reduced to a misdemeanor and expunged! I did it on my own. I wish nothing but the best for everyone, but one of the reasons this bill is required is because you can’t clump everyone together. We have people still registering for misdemeanors long ago expunged with summary probation? You guys need to grow up! I’m thrilled and I’m 100 % positive this… Read more »

There are a lot of codes that will still be tier 2 and 3 despite only being a misdemeanor and expunged.

Yeah, lot of numbers comparing. I think this bill is great. My wobblier was reduced to a misdemeanor, dismissed and expunged right at early end of probation all automatically for me in 1994 and I didn’t even know it. I applied to have the PD’s paralegals take care of it for me and they came back and told me that it was done in 1994. It was still good that I did as the public record was reading correctly (not in my favor) she had to correct the errors in the record and made sure my case did read as… Read more »

Ok.. Say I got to do 20 years on the Registery.. When does that 20 start? When I was convicted? When I was on parole or probation? or the completion of parole or probation? Or 20 years after this law passes?

The time begins once your released (if you where incarcerated). If just given probation, I’m not sure. It’s upon your release. Good luck!

Depending on your situation time starts from the date of conviction … if you are sentenced to time in prison/jail that time does not count towards your minimum registration time. Time on parole or probation does count towards your minimum. So if your conviction was 20 yrs ago when the law takes affect you will then be eligible to petition for removal if you did no jail/prison time

Whatever your release date from custody is. It says the date on your price club membership profile. Have someone look at it for you.

Nope, no dates on my profile… maybe I’m being to ahead of myself and read that CP is a tier 3 for life… so its just a normal day

I wasn’t sure where to post this since California is not a SORNA State ( yet ). I have a few questions for those who know more about SORNA rules and regulations. Only 14 States adopted SORNA so if someone is planning on a vacation in Hawaii, which is not in SORNA and Hawaii requires visitors to register if they plan on staying more than 10 days ( If you know you are staying more than ten days, you would have to report within 3 days ). If staying less than 10 days, one will not have to register, right?… Read more »

@someone who cares – obviously it’s a personal decision but from my standpoint and experience I have zero interest in registering in another state while vacationing or doing business in that state. I’ve been to Hawaii numerous times and always for 10 to 14 days and I’ve never registered. My best recommendation is if you are going with someone else have them rent the car in their name have them put the hotel in their name. Don’t do anything stupid and enjoy your time there. No one’s going to bother you if you do that. In my opinion if you… Read more »

Forget about SORNA. It has nothing to do with us directly. It’s federal guidelines for states to follow to receive certain funding. States violate Sorna, not registrants. As for your second scenario, you must follow the state’s laws you are visiting. There is no state law that requires you to register in another state when visiting that state. It’s entirely up to the receiving state. States cannot enforce any such law if they did because its officers only have the power to arrest for crimes committed in their state. Similarly, if you obtain relief through the tiered registry, you will… Read more »

@ExpatRFSO: “Forget about SORNA. It has nothing to do with us directly. It’s federal guidelines for states to follow to receive certain funding. States violate Sorna, not registrants.” Wrong, and possibly dangerous advice. I suggest you read, at minimum, Sections 113-115 of SORNA (https://www.congress.gov/109/plaws/publ248/PLAW-109publ248.pdf). These sections address what the individual, not the jurisdiction (i.e. State) must do. One is probably safe if remaining within the State of conviction, but once crossing that border to another State, Territory, or Indian Country, things could change significantly. May not, but could. SORNA may impose harsher requirements than a State does, which means one… Read more »

226
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
.