ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: Nov 21, Dec 19 – Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings 2020 (Phone only)

California

CA: Tulare County men arrested during sex offender compliance check

Two Tulare County men were arrested after they failed to provide information during a sex offender compliance check on Friday. Full Article

Join the discussion

  1. who removes from list

    NOT PUNISHMENT?

    “It is often thought that when a defendant is sentenced in a criminal case, the system has done its job and life an go on. That is hardly ever the case — victims are still recovering and communities must prepare for offenders to eventually return to their street,” said District Attorney Tim Ward. “Compliance checks like these are important in holding offenders accountable to those they have victimized.”

    • PK

      Since when are random compliance checks OK? Good grief- that must be a California thing.

      • Harry

        If, the RC is not on some type of court/parol supervision there is no law in CA authorizing it. This DA is most likely up for reelection and needed some showboating and RCs are easy news eye catcher. For these guys being arrested do mean they broke the law.

      • TS

        @PK

        Nope, compliance checks are a countrywide thing

        • PK

          @T you seem to very well-versed in every state’s regulatory scheme, but all I know is where I live it’s never happened.

        • Stay outraged

          Compliance “checks” are not an auxiliary function of Megan’s Law or the AWA (SORNA). They do not reserve the right to verify anything.

          Do NOT sign anything they stick under your nose when they knock on your door. That is for THEIR protection to absolve them from future liability. It’s only to cover their asses. Why should we help THEIR cause?

      • CR

        It’s not just a California thing. I’m in Texas. I’ve been subjected to compliance checks a few times in the past three decades (thankfully ONLY a few times). One of them was while I was at work, when I was still on probation. I was asked by the security guards to come out to meet someone at the employee entrance. It turned out to be my probation officer. That was so nice. I’ll never forget it. The mother fuckette certainly knew that I worked where I said I did, so the visit amounted to nothing more than harassment.

        In the years since, I’ve twice been pestered AT MY HOME, many years AFTER completing my sentence. On both occasions, I’d seen the cops skulking around for a day or so in their soccer-mom nondescript undercover super-sleuth grey minivan, so I knew it was coming. I met them openly on the street both times while working on my car in the driveway, in full view of my neighbors (and their kids, to whom they probably made up stories about what was going on), verified all the information on the form they had clipped on their clipboard, and signed it. I was as sweet and compliant as a slave could be. No problems, nothing harmed or damaged except for my pride and my sense of self-esteem. The fuckers.

    • wonderin

      Stated as though these men were on parole and waiting to be released into the community, unsupervised.

    • Oh?

      Well, if it is holding me accountable to my so-called victim, I’ll be sure to phone him the next time the Compliance Cops show up at the door, so he can speak directly to them and tell them to “Fuck off” in his own words! 👍

  2. Robert Curtis

    These guys should seek damages from the county for false arrest and imprisonment. Even if they don’t get a settlement the actions states if something is wrongfully done it will be challenged.

  3. AJ

    There’s gotta be more to this story. Perhaps the men were living at places that were not registered? Does CA require registration updates outside the yearly? Could they live somewhere for 11 months and then update? The article says they were arrested for failure to provide *true* registration information, so it sounds as though they either lied or didn’t properly update.

    • AlexO

      By California law, we’re required to report our residence change within 5 working days. And a “residence change” is anything where you spend more than 5 consecutive nights out of your home. So if your going for a 10-day vacation, you technically need to register out with your current city. And then, if you’re going to spend more than 5 consecutive nights in another jurisdiction, even if its still in California, you need to register with them.

      Of course non of this is really laid out this way to you with the papers they have you sign. All you really see is that you have to report within 5 days of your address change. Pretty much everyone would assume this means an actual address change and not something that would effect your vacation/work traveling. As a result, most people are not compliant at one point or another but don’t get caught because how do you really police such a thing?

      • David Kennerly, "Wait, do you smell gas?"

        The last time I performed my annual registration “duty” I asked the clerk, as a hypothetical, if I would need to contact them before traveling. She asked me how long I would be gone. I replied “a month.” She said there was no need to do so but that I would want to check the laws of where I would be traveling. This was San Francisco. I’ve always gotten the impression that each office’s, perhaps even each clerk’s, ideas of registration requirements is all over the place.

        • AlexO

          Yup. Even LE don’t know the exact rules. It’s frustrating that there’s no clear information, LE isn’t held liable for not knowing the information, yet the full force of the legal hammer comes down on us if we don’t follow everything to a T.

          Seems like just about the entire 2003 argument and justification is no longer valid: The dissemination of the information is far different now, with you being outed on Google without the person even intending to look for this info; travel is most certainly a burden considering how not only each state has different laws, but also county and even individual cities. So now you technically have to research just about every mile of your trip; and the public information is absolutely used against us when looking for a job and housing, regardless of what the law may state to this regard. And of course the whole bases of “frightening and high”.

        • Tim Moore

          That I have experienced in San Diego County. Different clerk diffferent answer. Just like with probation officers. So are we still on probation, having to go by the word of the officer assigned? That’s another thing, I had the same clerk for several years. When I pointed out that another clerk I called gave me a differing opinion on travel notifications, she acted like it was her word and it was up to her to report me or not if I didn’t follow the rules. Her rules? Creepy. How is this not like the sentence?

  4. Eric Knight

    Question to reporter or other researcher: What is the SPECIFIC ORDINANCE or LAW that the registrant is accused of breaking? Show me exactly in the California Penal Code or any local ordinance that mandates the information that a registrant must provide on a COMPLIANCE check. For your information, in California this is no “Sex Offender Registration Act” authority in place; just the laws on the books at the state and local levels (if they are there at all).

    Obviously, there are laws that dictate the updating of vehicle usage and whatnot, but any registrant NOT on parole or probation has NO requirmement to even SPEAK to a compliance officer, let alone let him in the residence. Please do a followup on this story and provide pertinent arrest information, including the specific laws broke.

    If such ordinance or law is not provided, then there may be some serious illegal arrest violation litigation the city will have to endure.

  5. Friendly Advice

    In California (San Bernardino County) the compliance checks are very consistent and in a lot of towns. Ontario usually doesn’t do them unless you’re higher up on the watch list. Rancho Cucamonga and Fontana will do them a few times per year. If you’re not on parole or probation there is no law that says you need to even answer your door. But, rest assured, if you don’t answer they will come back again. I bought the Ring doorbell and love teasing them when they come knocking. I’m not on parole or probation so I don’t have to acknowledge them. I make sure that I tell them that I have no obligation to speak with them and eventually they get frustrated and leave (they know they’re being recorded). It’s up to every registrant individually how they want to handle compliance checks – but be sure you know what you are required and not required to do. 😎

    • Gralphr

      Truthfully, I lived in Moreno Valley and was listed as a Tier III and in the entire five years I lived in California (Moreno Valley), They never came by my home once. I was only told to do my annual registration once a year within my birth date. I’m curious why they never came by though. I am married with children and worked a pretty good Job in IT out in Hawthorne, plus I had already been out problem free for 5+ years at that time. I’m currently in Indiana and its complete hell. Whats even worse is the officer who does the home check thinks its crazy they keep me on the registry and even the registry office people think I should have something coming if I petition to get off the registry (Indiana lets you petition if you’ve been off probation/parole for 10 years) but I’m still forced to be on it. My problem is information how to even write a petition is nowhere to be found. I was never ordered to attend a sex offenders treatment class, and that’s something I’ve been worried will be used against me. The officer who comes by said to just explain my conduct since I’v been out of prison (obtained degree, married, have children, been out over 10 years trouble free and have always had a job). I’m trying to talk my wife into moving back to California, it practically felt as if I was not on the registry. Here in Indiana, I’m treated as if I’m Jeffery Dahmer himself………

      • SCOTUS SAVE US NOW

        To file a motion is pretty simple, in almost every state you need to write who you are, who you are filing against so in this case Galpher v The State of Indiana. What you a looking for on the next line: “release from requirement to register” and then state why: “In Indiana you may be released from registration after 10 years. In the last 10 years I have had 0 contact with LEO besides compliance checks. At each check I have been found to be fully compliant. I have done the following things as proof of my rehabilitation.”

        If you can get the officer to sign a sworn statement that says they believe you to not be of any further danger to the community that might help I am not sure how indiana works. Staple it all together and make 3 copies. Keep 1, mail one to the local DA’s office with a tracking number. When mailing have your wife send it and then have her sign a sheet a paper stating she mailed it out and this is the tracking number. You can find copies of proof of service all over the internet to copy. Staple that to the back of your motion. Then go to the local court house, find the Criminal Clerk window (yes this is just regulation, not criminal even though its completely handled by the criminal justice system… sarcasm) and then hand it to the Clerk and ask for a court date to be heard and pay the fee required.

        In almost every state the Clerk is required to accept all motions and a Judge can not throw out your motion for technical reasons (its not the right font, size, etc) if you are pro se…. They will give you some latitude.

        Good Luck! if you need anything else let me know

        • Gralphr

          Thanks for the quick answer! Its been nothing but hell trying to figure this stuff out. I even spoke to a lawyer who said he could help me but it would cost 5k for him, and an additional 5k to 6k since he would want a psychological evaluation to present to the court. Who has up to 11k to do this stuff? I’m married with children (5 kids!), I don’t have money to throw around like that, especially since I’m in Indiana where its hard to land a good job. I’ve made it thru interviews, and have been picked over many others multiple times only to lose to the background check. My conviction is never displayed on the background checks (It says no felony convictions) but the registry shows up and thats why they rescind the job offer. When my wife talked me into leaving California, I had a Data center position lined up in Georgia, but it took three weeks for the background check only for them to deny me since the registry shows up (once again, no conviction on it as always…..). It feels horrible to hear people say you’re the best thing since slice bread concerning a position, only to lose out due to the registry, and they say the registry isn’t punishment!? While obviously I want off, I need off for my children as well. What good is a father who has trouble with work, and doing things such as going to my sons football games, or my daughters plays at school? How do you explain to a 7 year old why the police comes to the house to do compliance checks? Its the main reason why I loved back in California, they NEVER came to my home and my kids were happy there.

        • SCOTUS SAVE US NOW

          you can explain that Daddy made a mistake and even though you’re take American is the Land of 2nd chances this isn’t always true…

          If you need anything else let me know, but ya,just go file and tell them what you want… My suggestion,and this is a HUGE thing for someone to do, move to a state where convictions are barred from being used against you when applying for jobs. NYC has banned employers from asking until after a firm job offer and then they need to prove the conviction is directly related to the to rescind the offer (embezzlement and accountant, child porn and school teacher, things like that)

    • Jeff

      I live in the San Bernardino mountains in an HOA community and saw a sheriff enter as I was pulling out onto the highway. I wondered if he was coming there to visit me, and have heard they have stopped by before but never had been there when they were there or ever caled them back after they had left a card at the door or talked to my neighbors. I have been off parole since the first January 2017 and had my 14 year old son at my house when a shefiff’s officer showed up at my house around 9:30 last night wanting me to sign and date my resident info and he had asked if my vehicle info was the same which may or may not be. They didn’t have information on my truck that was in the driveway, so when he asked me, I had said that was mine and he just said he was going to get the license off of it and there was no mention otherwise about it that I never mentioned it on my annual registration. I also still told him that I did still have my old vehicle that wasn’t in the driveway. I do not give them my current phone number, and have not worked in years, and if I do start working someplace, I am also not about to give them that information because I do not feel they need to try to keep tabs on me all the time when I am not even on probation or parole anymore. I then just told my son that I would have to tell him later what that was all about and he was worried that I was going to be in trouble. So my question is then, are doing these compliance checks by the police truly legal even since I am not on parole anymore? I want to call the Sheriffs’s station today and tell them how I feel about it and also inform them that I plan on moving to a house off the mountain soon that is completely gated with a gated driveway as well so I don’t ever plan on having anymore to do with these compliance checks again except for doing my annual registration until I can petition to have my case completely expunged in 7 more years in accordance to the bill that then governor Jerry Brown signed last year.

      • AJ

        @Jeff:
        “[I] never had been there when they were there or ever caled them back after they had left a card at the door or talked to my neighbors.”
        —–
        Even if you are home, you are under no obligation to answer the door…for ANYone. Whether it’s Girl Scouts selling cookies (remember when that used to happen?) or Thin Blue Liars, you are never obligated to open your door, or even acknowledge anyone being at it.
        =====
        “a shefiff’s officer showed up at my house around 9:30 last night wanting me to sign and date my resident info and he had asked if my vehicle info was the same which may or may not be.”
        —–
        Beyond not having to open the door, you also are under no obligation to answer any questions from LEOs. In fact, you could (should?) have just told him to leave your property.
        =====
        They didn’t have information on my truck that was in the driveway, so when he asked me, I had said that was mine and he just said he was going to get the license off of it and there was no mention otherwise about it that I never mentioned it on my annual registration. I also still told him that I did still have my old vehicle that wasn’t in the driveway. I do not give them my current phone number, and have not worked in years, and if I do start working someplace, I am also not about to give them that information because I do not feel they need to try to keep tabs on me all the time when I am not even on probation or parole anymore.
        —–
        Unfortunately, law and the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) say otherwise. You’re putting yourself at great risk for Failure to Register.
        =====
        “So my question is then, are doing these compliance checks by the police truly legal even since I am not on parole anymore?”
        —–
        Yes, they are perfectly legal…to a point. As SCOTUS has previously ruled, anyone can approach a home by the common path/method, knock at the door, await a response or, if no response, promptly leave. As Justice Scalia wrote, this right applies to Girl Scouts, Trick-or-treaters, UPS, and law enforcement alike. LEOs have to be careful though because what is trespassing or peeping for the others is a 4th Amdt. violation for LE. They cannot peek in your windows, cannot walk around your property (I think Scalia mentioned traipsing through one’s garden), etc. They can approach and knock all they want, as often as they want. But to highlight my point above once more: you have ZERO obligation to respond or answer the door. In fact, SCOTUS has also said that even if you have started to talk with LEOs (unwise under any circumstance), you can terminate the conversation at any time for any reason or no reason.
        =====
        “I want to call the Sheriffs’s station today and tell them how I feel about it and also inform them that I plan on moving to a house off the mountain soon that is completely gated with a gated driveway as well”
        —–
        To the first part, they won’t care because they have a legal right. As the second part, why tell them anything?!?! Stop giving LEOs any more info than you are legally obligated to give! That said, having a fence and *locked* gate legally stops all (GS, Halloween, UPS, LEOs) from proceeding to your door. As before, if the others violate that, it’s trespassing; if LE does it, it’s a 4th Amdt. violation.
        =====

        If you’d like to read the SCOTUS case law for yourself, I can probably dig it up. Off the top of my head, you would want to read FL v. Jardines, KY v. King, and even Hester v. US. There are probably one or two more that escape me right now. Oh, also read up on the term “curtilage.”

        • Will Allen

          I agree with all of this.

          People who are listed should have walls or fencing around their homes, if possible. Keep it locked and do not respond to law enforcement.

          If they come to your door, I would politely tell them that you have no desire or reason to talk to them and that you’d like them to leave (exactly what I used to tell them every single time before I locked them out).

          I don’t think you should ever give them any information verbally. You are only putting yourself at risk. Also, only write down the information when you are forced to, at the times forced to. Every additional time that you do it you are putting yourself at risk.

          I told my children to never speak to law enforcement. I think everyone should.

      • Bee

        I see nothing in PC 290 that requires a registrant not on parole or probation to interact with law enforcement regarding their registration requirement – let alone sign anything (gasp!), outside the annual personal visit to the police or sheriff station of their residence within 5 days of their birthday.

        Whether law enforcement’s knocking on your door to ask questions about your registration is an invasion of privacy or unlawful search, or perfectly normal conduct along the lines of of a Jehova’s Witness handing you religious literature or the Fuller Brush Man selling you cleaning products has been discussed here by people quite knowledgeable on the subject.

        Law enforcement base their operations on the SAFE Act. It is my interpretation that they are misinterpreting the statute to include all registrants in blanket operations, when it should only cover a few and, with reason, identified individuals. We had this discussion in the past. It turned into grammar gymnastics about clauses, sub clauses and commas. If you want to challenge these unlawful (in my opinion) intrusions into your and your family’s daily life, that is one way to address it.

        https://all4consolaws.org/2018/05/general-comments-may-2018/comment-page-1/#comment-207181 (search page for my user name)

        The same statute that “authorizes” and funds these checks also requires the participating agency to evaluate the effectiveness of these activities. I have not been provided anything of the sort when asked for this analysis required by law. So law enforcement is violating the very Penal Code Section it uses to conduct these checks. Nice!

        • someone who cares

          Bee ~ Thank you for these resources again. They are very helpful and explain exactly that these “compliance checks” are indeed unlawful for most who have experienced them. It clearly points out that “Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to authorize the otherwise unlawful violation of any person’s rights under the law.” (13887.4). I put this in my reading list to refresh my memories here and there to have ammunition if this were to happen to us again. I am also tired of people saying that they are allowed to know just like Jehova’s witnesses. First off, we have a “No Solicitating” sign at the front door, and secondly, even if Jehova’s witnesses were still to knock, they surely would not yell and scream “Jehova’s witnesses” and start banging on our door if we choose not to open. Oh, and let’s not forget the looking into our living room over the patio enclosure. If nobody opens the door, they will leave. Case closed!

        • Bee

          Oh, and there is nothing in the Penal Code requiring any information about vehicles other than on the day you personally (re)register at the local police / sheriff station.

          Someone correct me if I am wrong, but there is nothing to keep you from reporting a vehicle on your annual appointment / birthday, next day sell that car, same day buy a new one, next birthday report that car on your next annual appointment, next day sell that car, same day buy a new one, and so on. Unless I have missed it.

        • Bee

          @someone who cares – I reread that PC Section and remain convinced it does not apply as a blanket to all 290 registrants. It cannot possibly be the intent of the legislature to spend several hundred dollars of SAFE / tax payer monies to knock on someone’s door. It could be if there were a demonstrated public safety interest, but absent the required cost / benefit analysis there is no such thing.

          It always gets me when they feel the need to state explicitly that this obvious punishment / violation of something is not intended to be that. Because they know full well it be.

        • AJ

          @someone who cares:
          “They are very helpful and explain exactly that these “compliance checks” are indeed unlawful for most who have experienced them.”
          —–
          They are not against the law, but they are not supported by the law. There’s a big difference. Were they against the law, one could sue, cite the statute, and win. Not supported by the law means there’s no rule one way or the other. But the default is any person may approach any door, ask any questions, and receive answers or silence. IOW, their checking is not against the law, but the only response is to exercise your right(s) and ignore them or demand they leave the property.

          If one really wants to be pissy, get the names and/or badge numbers of the officers and send them notification they are personally prohibited from trespassing on your property again. Would this stop them? Probably not, but it would perhaps make any 4th Amdt. suit against the department, and the officer, a little stronger.

  6. Jack

    I’ve had two compliance checks. I’m off probation now and I will never answer the door to law enforcement. Thanks to Janice’s brilliant legal advice.

  7. Not Really

    The article is void for vagueness. Maybe it would work to do a FOIA request for the specific section of 290 they violated.

  8. Jeff

    Are compliance checks legal if I am not on probation or parole? I signed one for the first time last knight, but do not give my true phone phone number or work status.

    • CR

      It depends on the laws in the state you reside and register in. You’ll have to check your state statutes.

      Giving false information to a registration officer or to anyone conducting a compliance check is almost certainly illegal in all states. You expose yourself to arrest by doing so. It’s a felony offense in most states.

      • Will Allen

        I don’t think your first paragraph is true. I expect “compliance checks” are legal everywhere in America (check out AJ’s post above).

        But the question is – are you required to allow them? I expect the answer to that *everywhere* in America is “no”. I don’t know that for certain, but that’s my guess. If anyone knows otherwise, please respond.

        I do know that you should not communicate with law enforcement (LE) unless you are forced. And when you do, you should never give false information.

        Just as an interesting aside … a number of years ago, the LE criminals where I Register told everyone that they would need proof of employment. They even had the audacity to suggest that people bring a pay stub from their employer! The law has never required proof so I did nothing. They asked me who my “boss” was. I told them it was none of their business (and interestingly enough, company policies prevent sharing any employee information outside of the company). I told them that the law required me to tell them who my employer is and I told them. So beyond that, they should go F themselves. But they kept trying and trying and trying, literally for years, to stop by and see me at my business. It’s all gated off so that never did work. They finally got the message.

        Anyone who supports the Registries needs to very consistently and constantly see the message that it is not acceptable.

        • AJ

          @Will Allen:
          “But the question is – are you required to allow them? I expect the answer to that *everywhere* in America is “no”. I don’t know that for certain, but that’s my guess. If anyone knows otherwise, please respond.”
          —–
          The limit of “allowing” them is that anyone, for any reason, can approach your door in the hopes of engaging with you for whatever reason. That’s all the allowance that exists, and it terminates once they don’t receive an answer at the door or you tell them to leave. Any approach to the door must be by the reasonably clear or routine method. That means whatever path (street, driveway, sidewalk) that leads to your door. They cannot hop a fence. They cannot come through the neighbor’s property and cut across yours. Those are not clear or routine paths to one’s door.

          I have yet to stumble across case law supporting it, but I posit that if I have any sort of barrier across the path to my home, nobody is allowed in. The example I use is a (mostly decorative) split-rail fence along the front of my property and only a driveway to the house. If I were to put a locked chain or bar across the driveway span, I suspect it would be illegal for anyone to go over the chain/bar or go around the fence, as neither is the routine, clear path to the home. A fence with a locked gate stops all, legally.
          =====
          “It’s all gated off so that never did work. They finally got the message.”
          —–
          Yep, just like any other criminal, the slightest bit of hardening a target makes them look for easier ones.

        • Will Allen

          @AJ:

          All seems clear enough to me.

          I don’t think a person has to allow “compliance checks” anywhere in the country. I’d like to hear if anyone knows otherwise.

          I have found it surprising that the criminal regimes apparently have not simply tried to just make it a law. Why would they not? They don’t care if something is legal, fair, or American. They can just make a “$EX offender” “law” and see how it flies.

          BTW, I do expect that a person could keep people away from his/her home with nothing more than a sign. But it should not say “no trespassing” because a person is not trespassing if they just come to your door. Needs to say something more direct.

  9. AJ

    @Will Allen:
    “I don’t think a person has to allow “compliance checks” anywhere in the country. I’d like to hear if anyone knows otherwise.”
    —–
    I suspect you cannot be compelled to cooperate as it might approach involuntary servitude. If a sheriff can make a claim of that for being forced by the Feds to do gun background checks, I should think an average, unpaid citizen would have an equal or greater claim. Besides, what are they going to do if you don’t assist? Arrest you for….what? Of course the moment you open your mouth, you’re volunteering.
    =====

    BTW, I do expect that a person could keep people away from his/her home with nothing more than a sign. But it should not say “no trespassing” because a person is not trespassing if they just come to your door. Needs to say something more direct.
    —–
    The courts are split on whether “no trespassing” suffices, with most saying it does nothing. I suspect “keep out” and “no entry” probably have about the same value. Given SCOTUS’ holding in FL v. Jardines, it seems if anyone is allowed in, all are similarly allowed. About the only thing that makes the courts sit up and take notice is if a physical barrier is breached or circumvented.

    • Will Allen

      Crazy stuff. You would think that in a country with laws that a person could create a sign that could force people to stay off of their property period. It should be easy even. Oh well.

      Different subject … every time you say POTR, I read POTUS. Gives me a negative opinion immediately. What do you think of Registered Person? I think that term sounds more big government, more big brother, more Gestapo. Like … “You have been Registered by your government. Special processing now applies.”

      Also, I’ve got to think that more national Registries are coming. So there is not going to be “the Registry” (or maybe one will cover everyone?!). A person will be listed on a Registry and simply saying Registered Person will cover everyone. People might then say, “Oh, which of the Registries are you listed on?”

      • AJ

        @Will Allen:
        I’m up for any moniker or designation that we can all understand. I’m trying to shift away from the falling-out-of-favor “RC”, and “POTR” is what others had used. But I’m with you on its synonymity to POTUS. I kind of like OC for Oppressed Citizen, as that would tailor nicely with a definition of LEO that I saw on a legal website: Legally Entitled to Oppress.

        • Will Allen

          I do prefer RP to RC. F that “citizen” business. Clearly we aren’t citizens.

          “Oppressed” is an interesting word but too victimy for me. I would use “harassed” instead.

          I think that we are listed on a big government hit list primarily in order to facilitate harassment. That is the main purpose of the Registries. So I like PRHRP – Person Registered for Harassment, Restrictions, and Punishments. Because that is what we are signed up for and that is the point of the Registries.

  10. mk

    My hub just got a letter from the local police dept. We are in CA, he is off parole.
    In the letter they were stating that its intent was to do a compliance check via US mail.
    Of course the letter arrived, good as addressed because he does live here.
    But the part that is troubling is…..in the letter it states that he’s to notify local LE if he
    Mo9ved, resides part itme elsewhere or are planning to move
    purchased or sold a vehicle
    Attending online college or online technical vocation courses
    Plan to travel out of state or internationally (requires min of 30 day notice)
    Obtained a new job or discontinued employment

    wtf? 30 days notice if you plan on traveling? Why? When all Ive been able to find is if you move you need 5 days notice either way.

    • Bee

      OMG! That is a new one. PLANNING to move? Bought or sold a vehicle? 30 days notice? Are they informing him of his obligation under the law – and then some, or are they expecting a response via letter?

      It goes without saying that your husband not put his head in that noose and not return anything of the sort (though I am not a lawyer). I hope you forward this letter to Janice (get her info under Contact Us) so she can rip them a new one. And hopefully challenge these unlawful (imo) compliance checks in general.

      • mk

        I sort of understand the planning to move, and giving them notice. (un registering and re registering part) not too sure why they would need to know your taking an online class tho. duh. Online not on a campus taking classes. But the part about traveling? That I dont get when all I can find in CA’s 290 stuff says 5 days. (within CA) So why would you need to tell them 30 days in advance of travel? Especially when you plan to return to your residence.

  11. someone who cares

    AJ ~ Sorry, but I still have to disagree. Even if it is not a supported law and can go ethers way, I don’t feel just anyone can approach my door and ask questions when I have a “no soliciting” sign at the door. Nobody has come to my door since the sign is up, and it is my right to privacy, especially with the sign. If Jehova’s witnesses knocked on my door, asking questions, despite the sign, I would file a complaint. Plus, these checks might be part of LE’s policy, BUT it states that it is reserved for people on parole/ probation and habitual offenders as specified in Section 667.1. Other than that, it states ” “Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to authorize the otherwise unlawful violation of any person’s rights under the law.” (13887.4).

    • CR

      The city I live in has an ordinance requiring solicitors to honor a No Soliciting sign. Without that, I’m sure many of them would ignore it. It doesn’t keep them off your property, unless you’ve barred access in some way.

      The ordinance only applies to solicitors, not to government agents conducting lawful business, nor to utility company personnel seeking to access easements or to read meters. Perhaps your No Soliciting sign is effective for the same reason.

    • AJ

      @someone who cares:
      You can disagree with me all you want, but I suggest you take it up with SCOTUS, the source of my statement. Can reduce some people from trying to sell you on something via a “No Solicitors” sign? Absolutely. But you still cannot prevent a person from approaching for any reason and knocking. That solicitor is perfectly within his/her right to engage you in conversation as to why you have the sign, if you’re willing to suspend it for them, etc., all without violating your sign. As well, distribution is different than solicitation, so one could knock on your door, hand you a leaflet, and leave without a word, and that would not be solicitation.

      @CR:
      Agreed. Nor does the sign work for illiterates or vision-impaired solicitors. Nor does it prevent distribution, nor anyone wanting to engage in any conversation for any reason. It merely short-circuits the process of a solicitor’s knocking, your answering and declining, and their going away.

      • someone who cares

        What I found is this link

        https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/AlisoViejo/html/AlisoViejo04/AlisoViejo0404.html.

        Per Section 4.04.090 paragraph E – Prohibited acts., it states ” E. No person shall solicit, peddle or canvass any person that has objected, by words or conduct, to such soliciting, canvassing or peddling.”

        A sign should be sufficient enough to show by conduct that solicitors are not welcome, and even if there is the 1st amendment right to free speech, you as the homeowner has a right to privacy.

        Just my opinion.

        • AJ

          @someone who cares:
          The original discussion was about the legalities of compliance checks. Despite the tangent about soliciting (i.e. commerce, which can be regulated), a LEO knocking on your door to engage with you is perfectly legal. Any one can approach your door and knock on it for the purpose of dialogue. Period. Whether the ensuing conversation is regulated commercial activity is a wholly different topic and discussion.

          Nowhere have I ever said anyone is obligated to engage with someone who knocks on your door. In fact, I’ve said quite the opposite more than once on this site. All I’ve said, all SCOTUS has said, is everyone is free to knock on your door and attempt to engage in conversation with you. How you respond is up to you. Have you read KY v. King? Have you read FL v. Jardines? If not, you should; if you have, you should again.

  12. RegisteredNotAnoffender

    Once your guys registry changes go into effect compliance checks become something you don’t want to miss I’ll explain.

    I’m in a state where L1 offenders are not on the National or Sherrifs website. Only law enforcement can see our information. The exception in our state for L1 offenders being posted online is

    A) You are transient
    B) You are non-compliant (Failure to Register)
    C) You’re address is unverified (via the compliance checks)

    So just keep that in mind. I respond because it helps me maintain some anonymity.

  13. someone who cares

    AJ ~ It seems like I am trying to be argumentative, but I am really not. I am just confused, and I see it differently, I guess. We have bigger Fish to fry, so this is just a small issue compared to all the others we are dealing wth. Not to have the last word…lol, but I think we got off track when compliance checks were compared to regular solicitors, saying that anyone can knock on my door. Two things I have a problem with. I know that the ordinances were struck down when solicitors had to get a permit, and they are now allowed to go door to door without this permit, ABSENT a ‘no soliciting’ sign. WITH the “no soliciting sign”, they are breaking the law, not abiding the “right to privacy” law. Also, solicitors go door to door, officers who conduct compliance checks are not going door to door. They seek out a few doors without probable cause. So, I think that is discrimination. I think we can probably bury this topic for now and we can agree to disagree?

    • AJ

      @someone who cares:
      “It seems like I am trying to be argumentative, but I am really not.”
      —–
      Yes you are…. 😜 lol
      =====

      “I think we got off track when compliance checks were compared to regular solicitors, saying that anyone can knock on my door.”
      —–
      Agreed. And they are indeed different…but from how SCOTUS has ruled, the solicitor can still knock, just not solicit. I know that’s splitting hairs, which is something in which SCOTUS strives to excel.
      =====

      “officers who conduct compliance checks are not going door to door. They seek out a few doors without probable cause. So, I think that is discrimination.”
      —–
      Sadly, in the eyes of the courts it doesn’t matter and is 100% legal. I absolutely disagree. Here’s a good write-up about the topic of LEO “knock and talks”, which is really what compliance checks are: https://rutherford.org/files_images/general/Rutherford_QA_KnockTalk.pdf
      One item to note from the above PDF is the revocation of invitation. That is what a “No Soliciting” sign does…and what a “No Trespassing” sign *should* do, but so far meets with mixed results in courts.

      Now, off to frying bigger fish…! 🐟🐠🐳

      • someone who cares

        AJ ~ thanks for not taking things too seriously. How did the fish turn out…lol. I am familiar with the Knock and Talk laws, and maybe that is why I took this a little bit personally. Knock and Talk state that they can knock, and if nobody answers, they leave. However, in our case, they knocked, then banged, then yelled. So, that was not a knock and talk at all, but pure harassment. That’s all. Happy New Year to all on this site. Hopefully, we will have some progress in 2019.

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

.