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

 

 

 

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

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

 

  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  4. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Use person-first language.
  5. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  6. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  7. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  8. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  9. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address that are not personally identifiable.
  10. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  11. Please do not post in all Caps.
  12. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  13. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  14. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  15. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  16. Please do not solicit funds
  17. No discussions about weapons
  18. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  19. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  20. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  21. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  22. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

226 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

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?

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 offense, but due the constant escalation of laws designed to “protect” .
7. We have no recourse but to accept this because to fight all of this would cost millions, which because of our new employment status, we can’t afford.
9. We have to tell big brother where we are constantly or else face even worse punishment than we ever experienced before.

Wow, let’s all join hands and pray for a brighter future…….B.S.

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 have(or should have to) at least make it resemble some type of rationality. which it certainly does not in so many ways. I am not putting a personal category that I agree with on anyone’s offenses, I am simply trying to bring into perspective what the laws consider more or less dangerous and that there was no legislative fact finding, and no rationality to this bill………..

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 to be married again. So is he a 311.11 and is that the number I can look at. Also will he be administered the Static 99, or maybe he was already and doesn’t know that. It is all so confusing. He is going to be 47 years old next year. Does any of this matter? Currently required to register lifetime, but NOT on Megan’s list. Someone please explain.

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 they claim that “its in PC 290” that allows them to do this! THERE IS NOTHING IN PC 290 that ALLOWS LAW ENFORCEMENT TO CHECK ON A REGISTRANT’S RESIDENTIAL COMPLIANCE, if the registrant is NOT on parole or probation!

Can a class-action lawsuit be filed on this already?

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/

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?

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

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 3 is assigned to violent sexual predators, murderers, repeat offenders, rapists and high risk sex offenders….my misdemeanor conviction isn’t listed in PC 667.5 or PC 1192.7 which is serious or violent felonies penal code…..even if I was convicted of the felony which is 288(c1) it still isn’t listed as a serious or violent felony…..they have zero proof that defines me as a tier 3 registrant…..I have never been to State prison I have never been on parole I have never had gps strapped to me I was never ordered to attend any sex offender treatment or sex offender classes I have never been designated as a sexually violent predator and my static score is 1…no prior or subsequent criminal history and my misdemeanor is tier 3……no misdemeanor should ever be tier 3 it’s a minor crime……..they have zero evidence they can show me or a court of law that I righteously belong in tier 3…..NO WAY.

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.

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 bill will pass! The Governor has done his terms and this bill is both very well thought out and fair! Remember, there is always room for improvement/amendments etc. Best of luck!

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?

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? One does not have to register within 7 days as SORNA requires since Hawaii is not SORNA compliant. Am I right with this assumption? Next scenario is visiting Florida, which is in SORNA. SORNA requires to register within 7 days, Florida requires to register within 48 hours. Florida’s law of 48 hours trumps SORNA’s of 7 days, right? Maybe someone can let me know if I am interpreting this correctly.

One more scenario: If I live in a SORNA State but travel to a non SORNA State, am I required to register based on laws of the State I am traveling to, or will I have to register based on SORNA rules that say I have to register if I plan on staying 7 or more days, even though the State I am traveling to is not Sorna and has different regulation laws? I am not even sure lawyers know for sure. Any opinions?