General Comments February 2018

Hey everyone, does the information on the tiered registry posted on the attached link look correct? I’m referring to the info on which tier each registrant would be classified. Thanks in advance.

https://www.shouselaw.com/registration.html

And so it begins.
“Colleges have the authority now to set restrictions on enrollment and accessibility,” McDonald said in a statement. “Some, however, may be reluctant to act or not fully realize the authority they now have. My bill would make it crystal clear — we cannot allow level three sex offenders to use our college campuses as hunting grounds to find their next victims.”

First it’s the level threes but of course it will end up capturing us all. I tell you what, the first time I get denied entry into a college there is going to be bad things that happen…Just saying. I knew this would be coming down the pipeline someday soon. It was only a matter of time before they ran out of other places they could ban us from.

Man I really hope that Janice or some org takes this seriously (because it is serious) because this could blowup into a major issue for RC’s who are in college now (like myself) and in the future. Especially considering the average age on the list has been getting younger lately……….I hope I hear what position ACSOL is going to take on this issue, if any.

So….in other states people can be removed from the Registry.
Does that mean somehow that us California registrants are more dangerous or something?
I’m getting really tired of being complacent and it shows.

Could somebody please explain to me WTF this guy’s previous (six-year-ago) conviction has to do with the current hit and run charge??!
Scumbag media trolling for eyeballs! 😡

http://www.silive.com/news/2018/01/sex_offender_pleads_guilty_in.html

The more I re-read stuff, some thing else pops into my head that I didn’t see before.

This focus will be on CA’s 1203.4 statute (immunity program). I will omit sub-sections or sections of the statute that isn’t relevant to my thoughts.

Legal Law Link: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=1203.4.&lawCode=PEN

*******
1203.4.
(a) (1) In any case in which a defendant has fulfilled the conditions of probation for the entire period of probation, or has been discharged prior to the termination of the period of probation, or in any other case in which a court, in its discretion and the interests of justice, determines that a defendant should be granted the relief available under this section, the defendant shall, at any time after the termination of the period of probation, if he or she is not then serving a sentence for any offense, on probation for any offense, or charged with the commission of any offense, be permitted by the court to withdraw his or her plea of guilty or plea of nolo contendere and enter a plea of not guilty; or, if he or she has been convicted after a plea of not guilty, the court shall set aside the verdict of guilty; and, in either case, the court shall thereupon dismiss the accusations or information against the defendant and except as noted below, he or she shall thereafter be released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense of which he or she has been convicted, except as provided in Section 13555 of the Vehicle Code. The probationer shall be informed, in his or her probation papers, of this right and privilege and his or her right, if any, to petition for a certificate of rehabilitation and pardon. The probationer may make the application and change of plea in person or by attorney, or by the probation officer authorized in writing. However, in any subsequent prosecution of the defendant for any other offense, the prior conviction may be pleaded and proved and shall have the same effect as if probation had not been granted or the accusation or information dismissed. The order shall state, and the probationer shall be informed, that the order does not relieve him or her of the obligation to disclose the conviction in response to any direct question contained in any questionnaire or application for public office, for licensure by any state or local agency, or for contracting with the California State Lottery Commission.

(4) This subdivision shall apply to all applications for relief under this section which are filed on or after November 23, 1970.

(b) Subdivision (a) of this section does not apply to any misdemeanor that is within the provisions of Section 42002.1 of the Vehicle Code, to any violation of subdivision (c) of Section 286, Section 288, subdivision (c) of Section 288a, Section 288.5, subdivision (j) of Section 289, Section 311.1, 311.2, 311.3, or 311.11, or any felony conviction pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 261.5, or to any infraction.

(g) Notwithstanding the above provisions or any other provision of law, the Governor shall have the right to pardon a person convicted of a violation of subdivision (c) of Section 286, Section 288, subdivision (c) of Section 288a, Section 288.5, or subdivision (j) of Section 289, if there are extraordinary circumstances.

(Amended by Stats. 2013, Ch. 143, Sec. 2. (AB 20) Effective January 1, 2014.)
*******
.
.
My point is to prove that registrants are being excluded from the immunities provided to all convicts that qualify from statute 1203.4.

1203.4 (a)(1). “the court shall thereupon dismiss the accusations or information against the defendant and except as noted below, he or she shall thereafter be released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense of which he or she has been convicted”

*Translation: All penalties and disabilities will be removed. Only exceptions will be listed below.

1203.4 (a)(4). This subdivision shall apply to all applications for relief under this section which are filed on or after November 23, 1970.

*Translation: Relief is applied to all who qualify for the application of 1203.4. (This is the new item.) It doesn’t specify “some relief” is applied to all. It says “relief” is applied to “all”, which included registrants.

1203.4 (b). Subdivision (a) of this section does not apply to any misdemeanor that is within the provisions of Section 42002.1 of the Vehicle Code, to any violation of subdivision (c) of Section 286, Section 288, subdivision (c) of Section 288a, Section 288.5, subdivision (j) of Section 289, Section 311.1, 311.2, 311.3, or 311.11, or any felony conviction pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 261.5, or to any infraction.

*Translation: This is the first exception for Registrants who cannot qualify for the immunity.

1203.4 (g). Notwithstanding the above provisions or any other provision of law, the Governor shall have the right to pardon a person convicted of a violation of subdivision (c) of Section 286, Section 288, subdivision (c) of Section 288a, Section 288.5, or subdivision (j) of Section 289, if there are extraordinary circumstances.

*Translation: Although there are exceptions denoted in 1203.4 (b), some of the exception can still qualify for a Pardon by the Governor.

…
..
.
Again, nowhere in 1203.4 does it state that a registrant must continue to register. In fact, 1203.4 (a)(4) states any who qualify for the immunity shall get relief. Please note, penalties and disabilities are not defined as punitive or civil, but rather the inclusive “all” term.

Now, there is an exception not pertaining to registrants in 1203.4:

1203.4 (a)(2). Dismissal of an accusation or information pursuant to this section does not permit a person to own, possess, or have in his or her custody or control any firearm or prevent his or her conviction under Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 29800) of Division 9 of Title 4 of Part 6.

*Translation: A dismissal does not permit you to own a firearm. But this only pertains to those who still have a felony with a case dismissal. Once you have your charge reduced to a misdemeanor, then you are able to own a firearm once again.
…
..
.
The firearm exception is duly noted within 1203.4. Certain sex convictions exceptions to disqualify from 1203.4 is duly noted within 1203.4. Nowhere within 1203.4 does it state specifically that registrants must continue to register like it does with the firearms exception of relief.

That means all over relief must be applied. To whom?
1203.4 (a)(4) states that relief must to all applicants.

What relief?
1203.4 (a)(1) states, ” the court shall set aside the verdict of guilty; and, in either case, the court shall thereupon dismiss the accusations or information against the defendant and except as noted below, he or she shall thereafter be released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense of which he or she has been convicted,”.

…
..
.
I want to re-iterate the term “all” is utilized in 1203.4 (a)(1) relief and 1203.4 (a)(4) qualifications.

The firearm relief exception is applied to all under 1203.4. The registry relief isn’t applied to all, but it was not denoted as an exception either under 1203.4.

Now, conflate that with CA Const, Art 1, Sec 7(b):
“A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens. Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or revoked.”
Link: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=CONS&division=&title=&part=&chapter=&article=I

1203.4 applies to all who qualify. All those who qualify have their cases dismissed and are given all relief from their conviction save relief of owning a firearm.

It’s different for registrants. For those who qualify for 1203.4, they only are awarded a case dismissal. There is no relief from the registry, which is both a penalty and disability. Penalty such that there is punishment for not abiding by rules and restrictions set by the state that no other sets of convicts share. Disability because of said restrictions that no other sets of convicts share, especially with a minor. A registrant cannot volunteer until he or she discloses that information to the local PD and if the local PD permits it.

So the 1203.4 relief program doesn’t relieve registrants from registering even though they qualify for all relief. No other sets of convicts need to report to the local PD once a year to disclose their information, or report to the local PD after a significant change in their equity (home, auto, school, job).

What’s the distinction between those registrants who qualify for 1203.4 and those who do not? A case dismissal, but both remain on the registry for life.

Here’s a recent case from Illinois:
https://floridaactioncommittee.org/illinois-appellate-court-rules-lifetime-sex-offender-registration-grossly-disproportionate-punishment-for-21-year-old/

In that case, they denote there’s no distinction between registrants. The fact there’s no distinction between a low-risk registrant and a high-risk registrant pits the courts into stating the punishment is disproportionate.

In CA, they’ve yet to identify the registry as punitive. Fine. But the registry is a civil penalty and a civil disability. Remember, the registry is applied at conviction. It is a loss of privacy.

CA Const, Art 1, Sec 1:
“All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.”

It is an inalienable right to pursue and obtain privacy. That right was taken away when one is put on the CA registry as you’re on there for a “lifetime” term.

1203.4 is a relief program that should allow a registrant have relief from the registry and regain privacy. Although, nowhere within 1203.4 does it state it doesn’t give relief from the registry, it is not granted. The negation to obtain privacy through the 1203.4 relief program is thwarted. That runs contrary to the State’s Constitution. 1203.4 is supposed to grant relief with the only exception is firearm felonies and those who are eligible. The State of CA has negated my right to pursue and obtain privacy with the 1203.4 relief program, to which CA Const., Art. 1, Sec. 7(b) is supposed to employ equal immunity.

Now, here’s a kicker. We go back to 2003 Smith v Doe, from the opinion.
Link: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/538/84/case.html

*** “In contrast to those punishments, the Act’s stigma results not from public display for ridicule and shaming but from the dissemination of accurate information about a criminal record, most of which is already public.”

My Take: Only convictions of a criminal record are to be disseminated. In CA, 1203.4 is a case dismissal. There no longer is a criminal record. If CA is calling the registry punitive and based upon the 2003 Smith v Doe case, then CA is breaking law by continuing to disseminate information that is no longer public.

*** “Also unavailing is that court’s assertion that the periodic update requirement imposed an affirmative disability. The Act, on its face, does not require these updates to be made in person. The holding that the registration system is parallel to probation or supervised release is rejected because, in contrast to probationers and supervised releasees, offenders subject to the Act are free to move where they wish and to live and work as other citizens, with no supervision. ”

My Take: 2003 Smith v Doe stated that in-person reporting is a disability. Aside from annual updates, there is an in-person reporting required for a change in occupation, acquiring a vehicle new to the registrant, volunteer work, going to school, moving a residence, or travelling abroad. For myself, every semester I have to do register in-person with the school’s PD. So if I do fall, winter, spring, and summer semesters, then I have registered four times in one year in addition to the city’s in-person registration.

The requirements to inform the local PD where I work or volunteer is a type of supervision. Compliance check is a type of supervision. Registering with the school’s PD is supervision.

The scope of employment is also limited by being on the registry. I am excluded from being a firefighter in my local city.

*** ” While the Act does differentiate between individuals convicted of aggravated or multiple offenses and those convicted of a single nonaggravated offense, these broad categories and the reporting requirement’s corresponding length are reasonably related to the danger of recidivism, and this is consistent with the regulatory objective. Fourth, the Act has a rational connection to a legitimate nonpunitive purpose, public safety, which is advanced by alerting the public to the risk of sex offenders in their community. ”

My Take: In CA, there is only one term for the registry: “Lifetime”. I do not see any distinction between a single offense and multiple, aggravated offenses as all CA registrants are lifetime terms. But please note, that the fourth factor is alerting the public with the use of public information. But a dismissed case states you have no criminal record and thus should no longer participate in any form of dissemination of any information, according to this opinion.
…
..
.
Recap: Dismissed cases are no longer public information because they do not exist. Yet, your registration requirement still exists, which is still subject to public information because a registrant must continue to provide updated information annually, at a minimum.

Yet, if we tie this back to the Illinois case of disproportionate punishment, CA has designated all registrants with a “lifetime” classification. That classification negates all CA registrants from federal Housing and Urban Development (HUD) assistance.

Because CA doesn’t award relief from the lifetime termed registry supposedly offered in 1203.4, CA has negated the inalienable to “acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety”. With HUD assistance, a registrant gets into a domicile, which is property. And on that property, they are pursing and obtaining safety by not living as a homeless person.

The removal of CA Constitutional inalienable rights is a penalty and disability. How are registrants who qualify for 1203.4 not afforded such relief like all those other convicts who benefit from relief from all penalties and disabilities due to their conviction? Doesn’t the “equal immunity” statute within the CA Constitution hold any weight?