Although believed to be stopped, the Tiered Registry Bill has been revitalized by its author Sen. Scott Wiener. The bill has a new number — SB 384 — as well as new content. This was accomplished through the “gut and amend” process available to state legislators.
“As compared to the prior bill, SB 384 significantly reduces the number of people who would be assigned to Tiers 1 and 2 and therefore eligible to petition for removal from the registry in 10 or 20 years,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci. “For example, the new bill would assign people convicted of felony possession of child pornography to Tier 3, which would continue their existing requirement to register for a lifetime.”
SB 384 is similar to the final version of the former tiered registry bill in that it will take effect on January 1, 2021. The bill could be modified before its effective date.
In order to become law, SB 384 must be considered and passed by two committees (Public Safety and Appropriations) and the full Assembly, then return to the Senate for a concurrence vote. All of these steps must be accomplished no later than September 15.
ACSOL board members will consider today the organization’s position on SB 384. Input from registrants, family members and supporters is encouraged via this website.
This bill is now a horrible piece of garbage. I am in favor of defeating this new amended bill because it is entirely based upon emotion and not empirical evidence.
I looked for SB384 and found a bill to allow alcohol sales past 2am please confirm the bill number
Now… those placed in Tier 3 due to high Static99 score can petition off after 20 years. But… 288(a) (l&l with a child under 14) is Tier 2, and 288.2 (sending harmful matter to a minor) is Tier 3? Is that right? Absurd!
I say – NO! I say – time to go for the jugular. Snyder, Muniz and Colorado – and Janice Bellucci – all the way!!!
Why would we want a Tired bill when we have Colorado Sex Offender Registry Unconstitutional in our sight.
We didn’t have this chance before but now getting rid of the Registry is now possible.
I’m not sure how to feel about this.
On the one hand, I’m still a Tier 1 and will be eligible for relief in 2021, which means I’m waiting an extra year to get off. I’m still going to file the CoR in 2020 not just for relief, but because I want to put this whole thing behind me.
On the other hand, it still leaves a lot of people on the list. I didn’t go too thoroughly over this bill, but nowhere did I find automatic relief for those who have been on the registry for 30+ years. And that’s just it, why isn’t this automatic? Why the need to petition? Although it seems like under this bill, it would make it much harder for the D.A. to justify keeping someone on the registry beyond his/her term.
Why the need to keep people in tier 3? Isn’t the purpose to reduce those listed?
If this passes, I would suggest anyone who has a wobbler offense, file the 17b.
I think with Snyder and Colorado many, many changes to this bill will happen before it goes into affect…if it ever does.
I support any change to the system. It will help a lot of people. And now with the new case law coming down, those who don’t like this bill can pursue other avenues. Anyone on here that doesn’t support this bill is being very selfish as it change nothing for you but WILL help some.
Wow..288.2 tier three, 288(a) tier two!!!!!!!!!!Worthless……Everyone on the public site……no drop offs……..this bill is the worst thing to ever come our way since the enactment of the registry in 1947!!!!!!!!!!!
One week for the votes to happen that is cutting it close if they did not pass it on September 1st what in this new bill would make them change there minds to pass it this time?
if it ever does.. been doing this now for 25 years, seems our state has issue’s w roman type de facto blood & guts .. smfh
Yeah definitely opposed to that one. Wow, this Weiner guy’s all over the place. First it’s tier one, then it’s teir two and now 3? He just has no idea what he’s doing.
Why did they bring back something that was bad and now made worse? I’m still trying to wrap my head around how non-contact crimes are in T3 while what most would consider much more series crimes are in T2 or T1?
Ok NPS, not everyone, but the vast majority will be listed.
(b) (1) On or before July 1, 2005, 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 described in, paragraph (2), 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, prior adjudication as a sexually violent predator, the address at which the person resides, and any other information that the Department of Justice deems relevant, but not the information excluded pursuant to subdivision (a). On or before January 1, 2013, the department shall make available to the public via the Internet Web site his or her static SARATSO score and information on an elevated risk level based on the SARATSO future violence tool.
(2) This subdivision shall apply to the following offenses and offenders:
(A) Section 187 committed in the perpetration, or an attempt to perpetrate, rape or any act punishable under Section 286, 288, 288a, or 289.
(B) Section 207 committed with intent to violate Section 261, 286, 288, 288a, or 289.
(C) Section 209 committed with intent to violate Section 261, 286, 288, 288a, or 289.
(D) Paragraph (2) or (6) of subdivision (a) of Section 261.
(E) Section 264.1.
(F) Section 269.
(G) Subdivision (c) or (d) of Section 286.
(H) Subdivision (a), (b), or (c) of Section 288, provided that the offense is a felony.
(I) Subdivision (c) or (d) of Section 288a.
(J) Section 288.3, provided that the offense is a felony.
(K) Section 288.4, provided that the offense is a felony.
(L) Section 288.5.
(M) Subdivision (a) or (j) of Section 289.
(N) Section 288.7.
(O) Any person who has ever been adjudicated a sexually violent predator, as defined in Section 6600 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
(P) A felony violation of Section 311.1.
(Q) A felony violation of subdivision (b), (c), or (d) of Section 311.2.
(R) A felony violation of Section 311.3.
(S) A felony violation of subdivision (a), (b), or (c) of Section 311.4.
(T) Section 311.10.
(U) A felony violation of Section 311.11.
(c) (1) On or before July 1, 2005, with respect to a person who has been convicted of the commission or the attempted commission of any of the offenses listed in paragraph (2), 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, the community of residence and ZIP Code in which the person resides or the county in which the person is registered as a transient, and any other information that the Department of Justice deems relevant, but not the information excluded pursuant to subdivision (a). On or before July 1, 2006, the Department of Justice shall determine whether any person convicted of an offense listed in paragraph (2) also has one or more prior or subsequent convictions of an offense listed in subdivision (c) of Section 290, and, for those persons, the Department of Justice shall make available to the public via the Internet Web site the address at which the person resides. However, the address at which the person resides shall not be disclosed until a determination is made that the person is, by virtue of his or her additional prior or subsequent conviction of an offense listed in subdivision (c) of Section 290, subject to this subdivision.
(2) This subdivision shall apply to the following offenses:
(A) Section 220, except assault to commit mayhem.
(B) Paragraph (1), (3), or (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 261.
(C) Paragraph (2) of subdivision (b), or subdivision (f), (g), or (i), of Section 286.
(D) Paragraph (2) of subdivision (b), or subdivision (f), (g), or (i), of Section 288a.
(E) Subdivision (b), (d), (e), or (i) of Section 289.
(d) (1) On or before July 1, 2005, 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 described in, this subdivision, 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, the community of residence and ZIP Code in which the person resides or the county in which the person is registered as a transient, and any other information that the Department of Justice deems relevant, but not the information excluded pursuant to subdivision (a) or the address at which the person resides.
(2) This subdivision shall apply to the following offenses and offenders:
(A) Subdivision (a) of Section 243.4, provided that the offense is a felony.
(B) Section 266, provided that the offense is a felony.
(C) Section 266c, provided that the offense is a felony.
(D) Section 266j.
(E) Section 267.
(F) Subdivision (c) of Section 288, provided that the offense is a misdemeanor.
(G) Section 288.3, provided that the offense is a misdemeanor.
(H) Section 288.4, provided that the offense is a misdemeanor.
(I) Section 626.81.
(J) Section 647.6.
(K) Section 653c.
If the plan to have a lawsuit will continue even if the new bill passes, and, there can be changes made to the new bill between its passing and its implementation then that’s promising. Something tomorrow is better than nothing forever. But I admit to being selfish because I recognize that those who will be placed in Tier 3 have a legitimate concern.
So i guess this will be more fodder for my argument when I go to court..
Your Honor, the lawmakers in Sacramento are now attempting (or have enacted) a tiered registry system which puts me in a tier three level with the worst of the worst (i.e. serial/habitual violent rapist and child molesters as well as attempted murders with sexual components and all the heinous violent offenses) simply because I suggested that a underage female meet with me for a sexual encounter (288.2), while other offenders that had actual violent contact offenses such as p.c. 288(a) (cite all the other more serious offenses that are tier two compared to my offense), are listed as tier 1 or 2. Your honor, how can there not be an equal protection success based solely on the fact that people that have much more serious offenses than mine are actually in a lower level of supervision under that bill? There is no way that I am being treated equally as all the others in my situation.
Yeah something tells me that wouldn’t stand. Or at least it definitely shouldn’t.
Good luck. I sometimes have difficulty interpreting the legal jargon:
PC 243.4 (a) reduced to misdemeanor, expunged? Saratso score 3?
Tier 3 for possession of CP? Is this a joke?
Oh yes. and your Honor, I find it extremely difficult to see how a person of reasonable mind could find this grossly disproportionate to my offense violating cruel and unusual punishment and bill of attainder as well as involuntary servitude for the rest of my life.
This new version is ludicrous. It completely negates the author’s intended purpose when initiating the bill, to reduce the size of registry to make it manageable for LE, and more indicative of “supposed risk” of offenders so it is “useful as a tool for public safety concerns”. Virtually no one will get off based on this bill, and for some crazy reason non-contact offenders are now considered as dangerous as violent and habitual offenders and remain lifetime registrants. ACSOL in no way should support this monstrosity and I can’t for the life of me understand why Wiener would resurrect this POS.
This barely qualifies as a tiered registry. A huge proportion of the registrants are resigned to the lifetime tier, with no opportunity for removal. Moreover, some of the tier assignments are illogical to the point of absurdity. For example, at least four so-called “violent” contact offenses under PC 667.5(c) are in tier 2. But non-violent and non-contact CP offenses are in tier 3. My vote is that the board either remain silent or oppose this bill, but please do something to publicize its absurdity, inconsistency with empirical data, and lack of common sense. Thanks to Janice and team for all your work.
Ms. Bellucci, could you clarify the following under tier 3?
(R) The person was convicted of a felony violation of Section 311.1 or 311.11 or of violating subdivision (b), (c), or (d) of Section 311.2, Section 311.3, 311.4, or 311.10.
Does this mean only felony violations of these codes will be in tier 3, or does the felony portion only apply to the first two codes listed, 311.1 and 311.11?
Thank you!
Let me note the real & substantial problem with this bill…with Tier 3 being so expanded, many, many more people will have to report 4 times a year, whereas now they only have to report singly…on their birthday and that’s all.
Four times a year is a TERRIBLE trap for people, a chance and excuse to arrest us again, pump up the recidivism statistics, and destroy peoples lives.
If Tier 3 were reserved to SVP…then okay, but as it is written I must oppose this revived bill with all my strength…
Somebody please kill this monstrosity in the cradle.
Best Wishes, James, (Tier 1 or 2 or maybe even God forbid, Tier 3…Damned if I can figure it out!)
Well Guys, I am not from Cali, I am in Michigan but from experience, the tiered system is a joke, and most people will be put under tiered 3. it’s just the way they try to justify things. Oh, and as far as tier 1 not being on the registry, don’t hold your breathe, that is what we were told as well, and guess what they are in our registry. Hopefully a lot of us will be off of it real soon.
@ James where does it say anything about the frequency of registration in the bill? I haven’t read anything about that in particular though I understand your concern.