Two Tulare County men were arrested after they failed to provide information during a sex offender compliance check on Friday. Full Article
Related posts
-
New California Appellate Court Ruling Could Have Deadly Consequences
A San Francisco Appellate Court recently ruled that parole agents do not have to comply with the... -
TN: Multi-day sex offender compliance operation completed in Carroll Co.
Source: wbbjtv.com 2/23/23 HUNTINGDON, Tenn. — Multiple law enforcement agencies joined this week to conduct a... -
OH: Surprise survey finds compliance among registered sexual offenders
Source: dispatch.com 12/13/22 Several law-enforcement agencies Dec. 2 conducted unannounced checks of 40 registered sex offenders...
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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. 😎
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.
The article is void for vagueness. Maybe it would work to do a FOIA request for the specific section of 290 they violated.
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.
@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.
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.
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).
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.
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?