ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (7/10 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

Click here to sign up now for ACSOL’s Online EPIC Conference: Empowered People Inspiring Change Sept 17-18
Download a PDF of the schedule

General CommentsGeneral News

General Comments May 2018

Comments that are not specific to a certain post should go here, for the month of May 2018. Contributions should relate to the cause and goals of this organization and please, keep it courteous and civil.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Looking for help!
My polling location is at an elementary school. I am a 290 registrant in California who is NOT on parole/probation. Am I allowed to go to this location in order to vote? Called the local police and they said it was fine, but I wanted to check.

@ UplandCA: Whoever you spoke with is incorrect. As a 290 registrant, you are required to get the written permission of the school administrator/principal in order to be present on school property. I know this because I am also a 290 Registrant and in the same situation as you are. (So far, I have been granted permission to attend events on public school property. However, I was denied permission to attend a community meeting at a private school.) Definitely get written permission. I believe you can be charged with a felony if you do not.

Yeah Chris, I really do not see how much power the $25,000 price tag really has. Am I missing something obvious???? It certainly suggest that the registry is punishment and is another probative factor but I do not think this cements it. You know they put people in prison for other crimes and those laws are not deemed unconstitutional. I understand the relationship but Just cannot wrap my head around a definitive fact. Correct me if I am wrong and just missing it. LOL

I know what I need is a bunch of gov reports from in the early 90s or before the registry showing no meaningful difference from rates back then compared to now so that they cannot say “well it looks like the registry must be working’ crap…..

Election… my wife received her Statewide Direct Primary Election Ballots in the mail for Cali/LA.

A lot of names, and google searches really don’t state anything on candidates views and stances on SO’s. Example there’s one crazy Attorney General candidate who criticized a recent court ruling that could lead to the release of potentially thousands of sex offenders under Prop. 57, yet another one supported it.

I haven’t seen anything on who is voting for who?

I sent my mail-in ballot for the June primary last week and, being rather conservative, voted Republican or Libertarian and against anything that smacked of a tax increase. Hopefully Becerra won’t pitch my ballot into the round file because my “signature doesn’t match,” as he’s been prone to do lately.

BTW – I never vote for judges because I’m not familiar with any of them. It would be nice to have a record of each and how they’ve ruled in matters important to us so we can cast educated votes in that category.

Great news! Lets take the profit away from these websites. If they can’t make money, they wont keep doing this! It’s about time.

Mugshots website: Posting mugshots on internet draws criminal charges from California attorney general. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra on Thursday filed extortion and money laundering charges against the owners of a website that publishes mugshot photos and charges a fee to remove them.

I bet some of these sites will be very scared now. Most of these sites certainly don’t have the money to fight the CA AG.

Registry is not punishment but: “This pay-for-removal scheme attempts to profit off of someone else’s humiliation,” Becerra said. “Those who can’t afford to pay into this scheme to have their information removed pay the price when they look for a job, housing, or try to build relationships with others. This is exploitation, plain and simple.”

I don’t have Netflix and haven’t seen this, but I found someone posted this:

“NETFLIX has the ENTIRE documentary on Mugshot Extortion called “The Naked Truth” Episode 2.”

@Lakecounty – Thats amazing news, I remember a month ago I couldn’t sleep and I must have spent hours going over laws to get my photo off the internet. Pray for the best.

@ Bee and Someone Who Cares: OCSD website (Bee’s link) states “SONAR Team … utilize[s] the following methods to supervise registered sex offenders; residence and workplace visits, ….” Stop there – I am having trouble understanding how “compliance checks” are legal and not a violation of our civil rights. It seems to me that a Compliance Check is a police “stop” (because they are halting you from going about your business) WITHOUT:
1. probable cause/suspicion of a crime occurring;
2. a complaint of criminal wrong-doing, or;
3. a search warrant.
Do they do “Compliance Checks” on those previously convicted (even decades ago) of domestic abuse, aggrevated assault, manslaughter, assault with a deadly weapon? No, they don’t.
So does anyone know where it is written into the law that they are permitted to do Compliance Checks on non-probation, non-parole Registrants? Please friends, seriously, if you know, please direct me to the appropriate statute. It’s been 20+ years that I’ve been tolerating this harassment. I’m done with accepting it as “‘required'”. 😡

Police Mugshots:

I don’t know if this court decision has ever been mentioned here before, but a 2016 ruling from the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, held that a federal agency can, on a case-by-case basis, decline a Freedom of Information Act request for a mugshot due to privacy concerns.

And here is a very good article that describes how Police Departments can use copyright laws to keep their booking photos from being published by anyone else.

Very nice. I especially like that it involves other Attorneys General. ([Becerra’s] office said investigators are working with law enforcement in Broward and Palm Beach counties in Florida, and state police in Connecticut and Pennsylvania.) That will raise the issue in those States as well, since they’re already collaterally involved. This could start a tide against these sites. Warms my heart. 😀

For those that live in Florida, this law is to take effect July 2018.

Florida enacted a law that requires mug shot publishers to remove a person’s arrest photo from their websites, at no charge, within 10 days of receiving a formal request for removal. The measure passed with wide bipartisan support and Gov. Rick Scott signed it into law in June, 2017.

Under the new law, if a Florida court issues a mug-shot-removal injunction and a publisher does not comply, the court can authorize a $1,000-a-day fine.

@ Lake County: I suppose time will tell if the Florida law will be effective. It’s certainly going to be a challenge for the prosecution when you consider the details about the Mugshots website: “….. the business was registered in the Caribbean island of Nevis ….. domain name was registered in Belize ….
internet hosting company in Australia.” Quite a path to follow…. (said the Nigerian prince to Fancy Bear as they road-tripped to Burning Man.)

This might be a large enough fine that an attorney would be willing to follow the dots to the website owner. No one can completely hide on the internet. You just have to follow the money. But you’re right, it won’t be easy. It would likely help out when dealing with less slippery website owners.

If it requires a court to issue an injunction, the question becomes whether the court would grant one to a sex offender, or if the usual sex-offender exception will apply.

Even though mug shots are matters of public record, in most cases they are not published, or they are published locally around the time of booking, perhaps again if it is a major case when it goes to trial. Then it is pretty much dropped and forgotten. This is true in nearly all cases other than sexual offenses. Of course, there are heinous non-sex offense cases that generate national interest that may get a lot more publicity. But for run of the mill arrests, most people’s mug shots are seldom if ever seen, despite being a public record.

Given that registrants have their photos proactively published by the state (sometimes in multiple states), and often for life and beyond, what possible reasoning could induce a judge to issue an injunction to a mug-shot site requiring it to remove a sex-offender’s mug shot or registry photos? Does anyone really think that’ll happen?

Here is a link to the law dealing with entering a school, whether for voting or attending a child’s event. It has been amended, it seems, and you can read through what has been eliminated or added. It seems, voting is ok, and unless it is a certain offense, you can enter a school ground without getting written permission. Just read through the whole section and see if you fall into any of those categories:

Hi all. In one of SCOTUS’ oral arguments one of the judges quipped about the impossibility of registering while traveling. I think his point was that if a traveler was not in town long enough to be required to register, registration law fails.

So my question is about boondocking. That is, living in a motor home and traveling. I’m thinking of traveling to do research for my business but don’t know how it would work. Do any of you have experience?

What if California relieves me of the registration requirement in 2021 when the new law goes into effect? Will it still be necessary to register in other states due to the conviction still being on the record?

Any thoughts appreciated!

In one of SCOTUS’ oral arguments one of the judges quipped about the impossibility of registering while traveling.
What case mentioned this? I haven’t listened to all that many oral arguments, but it’s certainly intriguing.
So my question is about boondocking. That is, living in a motor home and traveling.
Where would you “reside” for mail delivery purposes? Whether domestically or abroad, you will have to have some sort of mailing address. I suspect that will throw a monkey wrench in attempt to evade residency and registration. Most RVers use a specific county in SD (I forget which county) for their residency, because they can do almost everything by mail after one visit in person first. I think even DLs can be renewed by mail/online. I have no idea what SD’s RC laws are. May be worth it, may not be.
What if California relieves me of the registration requirement in 2021 when the new law goes into effect? Will it still be necessary to register in other states due to the conviction still being on the record?
It all depends on the individual State’s laws. Some yes, some no.


“What case mentioned this? I haven’t listened to all that many oral arguments, but it’s certainly intriguing.”

I couldn’t find it but the justice mentioned the time requirement. It is at least a few years old and I think it involved a move to Florida.

Also, my comment was not about attempting to evade residency and registration conditions, but questioned how to comply. As you allude to, it seems rather impossible. California no longer uses a mailing system. Maybe another way to phrase the question is this: Have any of you gone camping for more than 5 days (or whatever the deadline would be in your state) and if you tried to comply even though the time limit would pass, how did you do so? Or is there a blanket no camping for more than five days (in California) without notifying the proper authorities? It might even be necessary to notify them before going camping even if not for the full 5 days. Apparently, I’m getting at the constitutional right to travel and it seems to be denied.

Also, how did you arrive at the “It all depends on the individual State’s laws” conclusion regarding the still a conviction even if California no longer requires registration?

@Not Really:
Also, how did you arrive at the “It all depends on the individual State’s laws” conclusion regarding the still a conviction even if California no longer requires registration?
Each State creates its own regulatory scheme, and appears to be under no obligation to honor anything from outside its boundaries.

The example State I like to use, because they’re so draconian, is Mississippi. Mississippi does not give credit for any time on a registry outside MS. MS only starts and runs the clock while one is a resident (defined as 7 days in-state) of MS. So you could have been convicted 70 years ago in a non-lifetime State, and the moment you’re in MS for 7+ days, they will require you to complete 15/25/life with them before removal from their ML. They also keep you on if you move away or die.

Personally, I suspect this sort of behavior by a State violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause, but I don’t know that anyone has challenged it. It almost certainly violates the Equal Protection Clause as one receives disparate treatment for not being a MS resident. It also probably implicates fundamental rights as the law has a chilling effect on MS residents exercising freedom of travel, movement and migration.

Thanks, AJ, I’m going to have to take a close legal look at this.

A little more search found the case. It is rare for a sex offender to win a unanimous decision.

Nichols v. United States

Fascinating Oral argument!

An analysis:

Interesting, but of no particular consequence. Congress “fixed” the law to close the “loophole” that Nichols took advantage of, little good though it did him.

And if Gundy wins on his delegation of authority challenge, while it may have a wide-ranging impact in regards to how and to what extent Congress delegates authority to executive agencies, I doubt there will be any lasting advantage to registrants for the same reason. Congress will simply “fix” the law by amending it to say what the AG already implemented.

CR, how did the “fix” fix the question of continually traveling?

Here’s a story that, though about a gun shop, highlights the same regulatory BS and games government plays to get what it wants:
Alameda’s true motive, of course, was to outlaw gun stores. But the three men managed to find a location that complied—it was over 500 feet from the store to the front door of the nearest home—and Alameda’s zoning board approved the application. After complaints from anti-gun activists, however, the county changed its policy to require a distance of 500 feet from the store to the nearest area that was zoned for residential use. That made the distance from the store to the nearest home 446 feet, which the county said was not far enough.
Does that modus operandi sound familiar? No matter how much one tries to comply, government, in the almighty name of civil regulation, can retroactively screw you over. Ah, the land of the free…

I have a question for all the brains out there.

If you’re a photographer and take a picture of someone and make money you must have consent release. states make money from the feds for the so websites with photos on that they do not have a signed consent to for

“states make money from the feds for the so websites with photos on that they do not have a signed consent to for” How do states make money specifically for the photos of registrants? States get paid for their registration program depending on it’s size, but how do they make money on individual photos? I’m pretty sure any court would say they are not making money on the individual photos themselves.

funding for being compliant online reg. that is how!

In front of Home Depot I met a guy gathering signatures to defeat proposition 57 by classifying misdemeanor sexual offenses as violent.

There is a lot that is interesting in this post:

This morning, the US Supreme Court granted cert in Gundy v. US to consider whether Congress’s delegation to the attorney general the power to issue regulations interpreting the federal Sex Offender Notification and Registration Act violates the nondelegation doctrine. That grant on that issue right has Con Law fans buzzing. But sentencing fans more interested in the substance of sex offender registries will want to check out this new commentary by Jesse Kelley in The Hill under the headline “The Sex Offender Registry: Vengeful, unconstitutional and due for full repeal.”

Great thread! Thanks for posting it. Some of the comments are priceless. I liked the comment about the baboons in black pajamas.

Yes, “The Hill” piece by Jesse Kelley of the organization “R Street,” is really excellent. Once again, it is a LIBERTARIAN organization which is coming to our defense. About “R Street:” “R Street is a free-market think tank with a pragmatic approach to public policy challenges. We draw inspiration from such thinkers as Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, Ronald H. Coase, James M. Buchanan and Arthur C. Pigou.”

I listened to the Live report this morning coming from the White House regarding Prison Reform. Does anyone know if there is representation on the behalf of individuals that are currently incarcerated for sex related crimes and those that are currently on the registry throughout the United States? They spoke of 2nd chances for all? And coming up with a bill that would be signed into Law that would do just that.

“Stephanie Adams is a proud advocate for women and children’s rights as well as the prevention of domestic violence.” This, from her website:

Yesterday, this self-proclaimed advocate of “children’s rights” murdered her seven-year-old son, and killed herself, by throwing him and herself off of the upper floors of a New York hotel.

“Woman, Child Dead After Fall From Midtown Manhattan Hotel”

Is a movement starting?

Is this the start of a movement where book is the first then start going after others including politicians? i hope so!
i just seen this:

and the the web site

Please everyone when you see any report or anyplace you can comment copy and paste a link to a video, web site, news story etc… and then when someone searches for ron book all these sites will come up first showing the world the real criminal ron book

everyone can do a little something, lets start dropping links everywhere – even if you sit on your fat ass at home and are afraid to personally get involved like me. lets start dropping links or create a video about some idiot that makes our lives hell and lets fight back and now we start to make there life hell! like here is a great video that just popped upped about a Florida A-Hole!

About that Gundy SCOTUS thing:

From this:
Gundy then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review his case, which it agreed to do only as to the question of whether SORNA unlawfully delegates authority to the U.S. Attorney General under 42 U.S.C. § 16913 to impose the law’s registration requirements upon offenders who were convicted before the statute was enacted.

That’s a shame they didn’t include that the AG also decided it applies to those given “deferred adjudication” where the AG actually re-writes the common dictionary so that the term “not convicted” actually means “convicted” if the case was sex related and they plead guilty or no contest to avoid a trial. I’m not quite sure the AG should have the god like power to define our words, especially to mean the opposite of what they actually mean, just to force people that thought they took a deal to be free and clear to now be subjected to the same punishment as those convicted in a full trial.

@Chris F:
Though it sucks they’re only looking at that particular question, I don’t know that their accepting any or all of the other 3 questions would change things for most of us. And since there’s no broader non-delegation question before them (even though one may exist), they had no choice but to keep it constrained. I hold out hope that they rule in our favor on this, and such ruling could then be used to undermine the rest of the delegation Congress did.

Historically, I would now add that all it does is stall the issue until Congress passes a change to fix things, but anymore I’m not so sure Congress would do so. They are not deaf or blind to what goes on, so the many op-eds and articles, the academic and governmental research, and the handful of court victories may steal the wind from their (read: Chris Smith’s) sails to dive into it again and more. Also, as of April 5, 2018, SORNA (the federal law, not the concept) is still being ignored by 32 of the States,* so why bother redoing an ignored law? Could I be wrong and Congress does another slimy voice-vote maneuver? Absolutely. But that’s why it’s called optimism, and not knowledge. 🙂

* I find it ironic, and somewhat confusing and comical, that DC is non-compliant. Congress has full authority to force DC to comply, yet hasn’t done so.


For Congress to force Washington DC to do anything only reopens the wound that others have tried to make Washington DC it’s own state before and not succeeded.

That may well be, but the point remains that Congress is failing to enforce its own law. Apparently public opinion (statehood) is more important than (dubiously claimed) public safety.

@ Chris F: It is my understanding that, legally speaking, unless the situation applies to the plaintiff, the plaintiff would not have “standing” to bring such arguments. Therefore, plaintiff Gundy would not have “standing” to bring the argument you suggest unless his own case belongs in the category you refer to as “non-adjudicated”. (The first lawsuit against IML was dismissed by the judge because it was the judge’s finding that the plaintiffs had no standing because no actions related to IML [i.e., revocation of passport or receipt of a passport with a unique identifier on it] had yet taken place. Therefore, plaintiffs had not actually suffered any injury from IML. Might be injured/could be injured/probably would be injured – in the future – was not deemed sufficient.)

That is true. I guess it’s just a shame it wasn’t a better plaintiff. Especially if there is one out there with both an ex-post facto issue and with a type of deferred adjudication.

As AJ points out though, at least if they say the AJ can’t do what he did, that logic could be used in a separate future challenge against the AG defining “not convicted” to mean “convicted”. I think that would have been an easier case to win, and could be challenged even if Gundy loses. I find it absurd to think the AG was delegated by Congress to define the English language any way he sees fit to add people congress did not intend to the registry.

Before I consider inquiring with my local school district (find out if they have a district policy that the principals have to adhere to) I figured I would ask what experiences others have had with requesting permission to attend a graduation. Have two kids and the first one will be graduating from middle school in a few weeks. I would be attending with my wife and our other child. Convicted of a non-contact offense and not on the public registry. Since I’m not on the public registry I’m able to fly under the radar a bit so I don’t want to draw any unnecessary attention to myself, my wife, or our kids but I also don’t want to come up with some lame excuse as to why I couldn’t make it to the graduation. I’m hoping to hear that others have asked and have been granted permission before I consider contacting the district or the school. The graduation is being held at the local high school which I actually attended and graduated from 3 decades ago. I know that if I do nothing, thanks to the law, I won’t be able to legally attend their middle school or high school graduations.

If you are not publicized on any website and are truly under the radar, I would not say a damn thing. I met once with our middle school principal who forwarded my info to our high school and met once with them and went to every school event (all on sports teams graduations etc…) for three kids all 3 years apart, and never had one issue. I am listed on the internet. If it were me I wouldn’t say a thing most don’t even know what the laws are. I would play stupid if confronted and say you thought because you aren’t listed and considered not a danger that it was fine. It’s hard to imagine someone would punish you for being a good parent. Not everyone will like my advice but I’ve been through it for 15 years and never an issue.

@MS-thank you for posing this question. This is one of my biggest concerns as a mother. My husband, like others here, messed up one time in his life, and I fear how he will be able to parent our daughter through school. Girls really need their father present as involved, and i hellbent on insuring he has the opportunity. She is not in school yet, we have a few years, but this is a huge concern for me.

@Steve-thank you for your insight. This gives me hope! I live in a very consevative community, the same community that saw our house get turned upside down by the FBI, but this really helps me to believe that my husband can be involved with our daughter’s schooling and activities.

I would also just try to be as low key as possible. It will get hard when your kids want to have kids come over and play. Middle school was the hardest but parents all knew and it turned out fine. There were some people that took longer than others but they eventually see your just trying to be a good parent. I had the attitude that I didn’t give a crap if I got busted trying to be a good parent. I was also gracious when I needed to be. Again some might not agree but you gotta do what you feel is right for your situation.

I can think of no starker illustration of the disparity between how this society treats physical and emotional child abuse, on the one hand, and sexual abuse, on the other. Moses Farrow, now an adult and one of many adopted children of Mia Farrow (who was something of a high-status “collectionneur” of foreign-born or disadvantaged kids, years before Angelina Jolie), has made consistent, compelling and harrowing allegations of physical and emotional abuse against his adoptive mother but is largely ignored by the media. There are no celebrity ‘call-outs’ for her behavior and demands to destroy her career or her life, as there has been with Woody. She is still showered with the accolades bestowed by a celebrity-worshipful society that are seen to be commensurate for rich women closely identified with the correct progressive politics and the correct emphasis on ‘social justice.’ There are no late-night television comedy bits about Mia’s abusiveness towards her fetishized, underprivileged child-objects as there have been about Woody’s alleged pedophilia. It doesn’t matter that two of Mia’s children no longer speak to her and have stood firmly with Woody over these many years and can articulate a history of harrowing abuse as children at her hands. This is the difference between allegations of sexual abuse and physical or emotional abuse and how society takes one very seriously, indeed and can’t be bothered with the other.

“Moses Farrow defends Woody Allen, details Mia’s alleged [physical] abuse”

Correction: “collectionneuse.”

Another Mommie Dearest? Mia Dearest, perhaps? Echos of Joan Crawford.

Both were Hollywood phoneys. Both indifferently exploited children to carefully craft their public image. Both were sadistic.

Maybe a stupid question but who thinks the following can be considered a judicial fact for purposes for a court to take judicial notice? I do not know if reasoning or suppositions provided by a state gov agency can be recognized as judicial facts. I find some sites stating that they can, but it is only logical to me that a court cannot take judicial notice of a supposition or opinion at all.

Wex Law: Adjudicative Fact
A fact that is either legally operative or even so important as to be controlling on some question of law. Adjudicative facts are those which concern the parties to some dispute and are helpful in determining the proper outcome in the case.

California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) End of Year Report 2014:
“Some of the consequences of lengthy and unnecessary registration requirements actually destabilize the lives of registrants and those – such as families – whose lives are often substantially impacted. Such consequences are thought to raise levels of known risk factors while providing no discernible benefit in terms of community safety.” (emphasis added) (p. 12) [visited April 4, 2018]. Complaint pp 4 ¶ 12.

Has this happened to anybody?

Santa Clara police pulled me for no turn signal ( yeah right). When the officer ran my license, he went into an in depth inquiry about my 290.

Are you current?
What was your charge?
Did you have a jury trial?
How long were you incarcerated?
What is your PFN?
When was your conviction date?

He never cited me for original issue. He was more interested in demeaning me and learning about me as a registrant. I don’t even live in Santa Clara. In fact he pulled me over in San Jose.

I do not live in Ca. Haven’t had that problem in NJ or Ga. What I want to know is, how did you handle the situation?

I answered the questions. He kept asking about the perticulars of my case , so I informed him that since I was no longer on probation and in compliance with San Jose P.D. that he should direct any questions to their registration dept. He then let me leave.

Interesting. In 2015, I was pulled over in Santa Clara for speeding. I was going 30mph in a 25mph zone past a senior citizen facility.

The officer just gave me a ticket and told me to drive safely. No inquiries about my registration status. I have always wondered what happens when they run my license and what it shows.

Question: Are you on the public registry that it would show up after running a license? In my situation, I am not nor have I ever been on the public registry. So I wonder if that makes a difference in treatment by law enforcement. For people like me, we’re only known to our local law enforcement. I do not live in Santa Clara county so, perhaps it doesn’t show up?


On a tangent about your information being brought up…

290 is supposed to be only for police purposes, but 290 will show on a background check. According to a background check, 290 is criminal in nature – not statutory.

Now, if you’ve earned a 1203.4 in Ca, then your case has been set aside, accusations/information against you dismissed, and relieved from all penalties and disabilities from the conviction.

You can be denied employment with a 1203.4 and still be on the registry, with the registry being the only component for the denial. Not all employers use background checks, and of those who use background check, not all receive the same information.

Back to the original situation, I wonder if ‘Counting the days’ is a guy. Also, did “Counting the days” earn a 1203.4? These are two traits that NPS has. But I do hope that ‘Counting the days’ didn’t answer the officer’s question that went out of the scope of what he was pulled over for because that would be a form of harassment. He’s a police officer. If he knew you’re a 290, then he should have all the info at his disposal. I don’t comprehend querying for information that he can get on his own from his car or his dispatcher.

I am on public registry for another couple of months, but the police use their own data base I assume.
As to how I handled it? I answered the 1st couple of questions, and when he started getting nosey, I told him that since I was not on probation and in compliance with The city of my residence, he should direct any other questions to S.J.P.D. He seemed flustered at my response and dismissed me.

I was driving through this little town on the eastern side of the Sierras in CA heading down 395 one night a few years back. I pulled over to check my phone for somewhere to get some food and while I was sitting there a local deputy with nothing to do rolled up on me and started asking questions. He said I seemed nervous, which I kind of was (as I’m sure most of you can relate), asked for my license and when he ran my name I overheard his police radio relay back that I was a 290 registrant out of (city I was living in). His demeanor changed a bit to that of outright suspicion- where was I going, did I have anything in my car he needed to know about, sobriety check, flashlight pointing around in my car- you know, the criminal treatment, though I had done absolutely nothing wrong. So, yes, they do connect the dots. But then again, I was publicly listed (zip only).

I take Janice’s and Chance’s cards with me wherever I go. I haven’t had a stop like this but intend if I ever do to show the officer the card and direct them to call the attorney whose number’s on it with any questions other than “may I see your license, auto registration and proof of insurance.”

Had a cop in CO Springs pull me over in a work van late one evening with a dull headlamp. Did the usual wants and warrants search but threw in there a question if my registration was up to date. He knew it was because they can see in their system if there’s a FTR. I reassured him it was but they’ll play that CBP question trick.

NPS, Yes, when the police run a routine check on you, the dispatcher will always notify them if you are currently a 290 registrant. That is all the cop will know about you unless he requests a full background check.

Why did you let him get this far? Never grant an interview with the police! I see that we need another reminder in the form of a YT video from James Duane, a professor at Regent Law School and a former defense attorney, to tell us why we should never agree to be interviewed by the police. “Any lawyer worth his salt will tell the suspect, in no uncertain terms, to make no statement to the police under any circumstances.” – Justice Robert Jackson

@David K

Thanks for the YT refresher on the video by James Duane. That needs to be near the top of videos to be watched and kept in people’s minds.

This is very true. There are no brownie points for being honest to cops.

There’s a dude on YT with some nice real-life videos regarding this: Another video that makes me chuckle are these DHS (and CA Agriculture) checkpoint interactions:

I gather from the responses that what I experienced was a “normal” registrant traffic stop. Now for an observation.
Why doesn’t the powers that be put the entire charge and final disposition on the police computer ( and passport for that matter) . I wonder if cops and immigration would take such a hard line if they had all the information.

Counting the days:
Because basically this information is all on different computer systems. You have Federal, State, County and the Registration Computer system all using different software and can’t interact between systems. Data from one system to another must be entered by hand and often they won’t even have the same data fields available to enter all the data that is available from each other. So in order to get the full data on anyone, they much run a separate check through each system.

FYI, the reply from Millard’s side in Millard v. Rankin (CO 8th Amdt. case) has been kicked back a month. Reply was due May 25, but is now due June 25. I’ll try to keep tabs on status and post as soon as I stumble across anything.


Thank you for checking on that and letting us know about Millard. NARSOL was supposedly putting together a brief to be submitted as well according to what they said on their website.

@ AJ: Please elaborate. I thought Judge Matsch had already ruled on this case. Is it being appealed?
Can you provide more information? Where is it being appealed? What court?


Millard is being appealed by the CO AG at the Tenth Circuit in Denver. CO AG has filed their docs. Millard’s atty is prepping their rebuttal now for June 25 file deadline.

TS is spot on. Also, the AGs of the States covered by the 10th filed a joint amicus crying how important and proper RC laws are to prevent the world from exploding.

Thanks, AJ and TS!

If being on a registry is no big deal, why do courts routinely allow “Doe” filings? Such filings are accepted to allow a person to maintain privacy when there’s a fear of harm, retaliation, ridicule, etc (

To quote from the URL, allowing a Doe filing may be reasonable when “disclosure of the plaintiff’s name would create a significant risk of retaliation against the plaintiff or others,” and, “[t]he threatened retaliation against the plaintiff could be emotional, social or economical.”

It sure seems to me that allowing Doe filings in RC cases confirms RC laws involve much more than just the embarrassment due to public records.

🇺🇸 On this Memorial Day, sending best wishes and sincerest thanks to Robert C. and all of those registrants who have so bravely served our Country. 🇺🇸

(Yeah, I know it’s not Veterans Day, but nonetheless, the sentiment is there.)

Here is yet another example of fudging the “international sex tourist”/”child sex trafficking” numbers. Just remember that the people who make it their mission in life to “protect victims of sex-trafficking” can never be trusted to tell the truth because they never have told the truth.

“Conclusion: Major flaws in study pointing to thousands of children in sex trade on Kenyan coast”

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is changing how inmates are housed, saying current separations between general population inmates and those held in sensitive needs yards have been ineffective in eliminating gangs and violence within prison walls.

Wow, another way to kill off sex offenders in prison. So the current system isn’t working so just scrap it completely? How can anybody in the prison system management not see this will be a dangerous thing? Maybe the extra cost of the investigations of assaults and pissed off families will make them think twice.

Here is one of the commenters to that story: “I work an AD-SEG UNIT and to say it’s not going to be a smooth transition is an under statement. This policy’s putting officers at a bigger risk of injury. We are seeing daily activity increasing with assaults and inmates checking papers. End results more business for lock up units, longer terms for refusing to go into GP UNITS.” “Inmates checking papers,” that’s OUR papers, of course. This is going to be a bloodbath for sex offenders.

@AJ, et al

Out of SCOTUS today…from NPR

In Win For Privacy Rights, Court Says Police Need Warrant To Search Area Around Home

Thanks for this. I haven’t read the Opinion nor looked at how the votes fell, but this is in line with what I expected. The article makes it sound like it’s a big new thing regarding curtilage, when in truth it’s merely shutting down a lame excuse LE used to look at some sort of evidence or property (here, a motorcycle). That the LEOs–and evern worse, lower court–thought that because it’s a vehicle the 4th Amdt. is null and void is pretty scary. The curtilage requires a warrant, excepting plain-view stuff while one traverses the path to-from the front door. The last paragraph summed it up nicely.
The Supreme Court has ruled previously that police cannot search the curtilage without a warrant, but the question here was whether the warrant requirement applied to motor vehicles parked within that area.
The general curtilage issue was pretty much settled in FL v. Jardines ( As Scalia said in that Opinion, there is an “implicit license [which] typically permits the visitor to approach the home by the front path, knock promptly, wait briefly to be received, and then (absent invitation to linger longer) leave. Complying with the terms of that traditional invitation does not require fine-grained legal knowledge; it is generally managed without incident by the Nation’s Girl Scouts and trick-or-treaters. Thus, a police officer not armed with a warrant may approach a home and knock, precisely because that is ‘no more than any private citizen might do.’”

The key part is that, absent a warrant, crooks-in-blue are both allowed to do and restricted to what “any private citizen may do.” However, when a private citizen snoops, it’s snooping, peeping, and/or trespassing. When the po-po does it, it’s a 4th Amdt. violation.

I hope this becomes a trend since U.S. Border cellphone searches will soon land on the SCOTUS doorstep. (See both Kolsuz and Aladaad.)

There’s a major cell-phone records case still to come from SCOTUS this Term (Carpenter v. US; The outcome of this case will have huge ripple effects on what the crooks-in-blue do, especially regarding their use of Stingrays ( Yes, SCOTUS is starting to clamp down on the technology changes the crooks-in-blue have been abusing. Unfortunately, CBP has an extra-special status and authority that may be hard to crack. I do think someday SCOTUS will say even CBP needs a warrant to search citizens’ and resident aliens’ electronics.

@TS: I read the Dissent. Once again Alito shows what a jackbooted @ssh0le he is. Is there *ever* a reason in his mind for citizens to have rights? He would have been a tarred-and-feathered Loyalist, had he been around during this Nation’s founding.


Thanks for the feedback on the dissent. Doesn’t surprise about him. There must be something wrong with his Cheerios every morning.

Also, thanks for the feedback on the cellphone case to be decided on soon enough.

USA Today has a decent article out today ( discussing SCOTUS’ repeated 4th Amendment rulings in favor of the citizen in the digital age. I, and the author, are of the mind SCOTUS will rule in favor of Carpenter in the cell-phone tracking case. SCOTUS really seems to be reining in the reach of the State in the digital realm. Cases routinely are decided 9-0, 8-1 (Alito, of course), or 6-3 (Kennedy, Thomas, Alito), and fewer 5-4 decisions.

Bonus: here’s a good read about legal and illegal use of a K9 at a traffic stop ( The key part from the article is: “An officer’s traffic-stop mission reasonably includes tasks like checking the driver’s license, registration, and proof of insurance, and running a warrant check. But a dog sniff isn’t part of it. Once tasks related to the traffic infraction are or should be complete, the detention must end. The central issue actually isn’t whether the dog sniff happens before or after the ticket had been issued—it’s whether the sniff makes the stop take any longer than it otherwise would.” Even if it’s a K9 unit that pulled you over (as happened in this case), they need to tread carefully in using the K9.

If anyone wants to read about the reality of being a RSO, go to
It gives stats on the # of suicides by sex offenders, both accused and convicted. The stats are scary. This gives a true picture of the hopelessness felt by so many. I personally struggle with these thoughts almost everyday. It’s so easy to be triggered by a sound, smell or visual that reminds you of a time lost forever. I am trying hard to keep it together until I have the opportunity to leave here forever. It is often a steep uphill battle.

I actually wouldn’t recommend reading any of that unless you want to be even MORE depressed. Most of the people that suicide or those with CP by the way. I personally can see why because they’re conflated with someone that actually raped, molested and physically abused a child (which the registry was initially made for).

When you know that you’re not a threat and nobody will ever believe you – especially LEOS and the courts – it fosters an inescapable life of bias and discrimination.

@ Facts Should Matter , ( Most of the people that suicide are those with CP by the way . I personally can see why they’re conflated with someone that actually raped , molested and physically abused a child !!! WTF ? is that so ? personally I think your bias and full of discrimination about a lot of people you don’t even know . So the court are dirty as all hell when it comes to CP but everything else is on the up and up ? talk about discrimination

“Our laws are the worst laws of any country in the world.” – Donald Trump – May 29, 2018.


Needing advice: should I heed the State Department letter requesting return of my passport? It asks very nicely that I return it as soon as possible.

Should I? Has anyone not returned theirs? Any reason NOT to return it, or to hold on to it till after the IML suit June 25 court date?

If they’re not demanding it back, then no. If they do demand it back, I would have to think on it. I’m not sure how I would go, just yet but I would definitely research applicable laws and would have to know that I was in some legal peril before feeling compelled to return it.

Other than as a memento or to stick it to the man a little bit, there’s no reason to hang onto it. State will not “un-revoke” the document, so any court activity is moot.

As for the demand that David K. touches on, who’s to say you didn’t mail it and it got lost? Not your problem…they need to talk to USPS. 😉

AJ, You’re right, of course, that it will not be usable after it has been revoked. My tendency, as always, is to not submit to their requests/demands if it can possibly be avoided. I know that you share this predilection, too if I’m not mistaken. Screw ’em, whenever possible. This is a habit of posture which we should encourage.

@David Kennerly:
I believe the au courant term is to “slow walk” returning it. Unless there’s some sort of statement directing me to comply within X days or else, I would have to reply that I’m working on it. That one must return it someday (i.e. before you can get another one) certainly is not the same as being required to return it promptly. 😀

Yes, I’m of similar bent.

Thanks guys. Appreciate the input!

Will either of you be at ACSOL or NARSOL conference? If yes we’ll need to add our blog monikers to our name tags 🙂

A prison by any other name
How Texas created a new for-profit lockup, which it really doesn’t want you to call a “prison.”

Anyone run into the concept of arbitrary law? I thought this was interesting. Post originated at FAC.

Journal article excerpt: “We contend that the original letter and spirit of the “due process of law” in both clauses requires federal and state legislators to exercise their discretionary powers in good faith by enacting legislation that is actually calculated to achieve constitutionally proper ends and imposes a duty upon both state and federal judges to make a good-faith determination of whether legislation is calculated to achieve constitutionally proper ends.“

James F Love IV posted this on FAC on May 29:
“The substantive prong of the Due Process Clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments secures the right of all citizens to be free from arbitrary and capricious government conduct.
Since Congress and most State Legislators have been stupid enough to place the “purpose” of the AWA and equivalent State laws into the statutes, i.e., the erroneous assertion of high rates of recidivism, and all empirical data is in opposite, the laws are subject to challenge.
My research finds no lawsuit that focuses solely on the question of whether or not the registration laws are arbitrary laws in violation of substantive due process rights.
There is a line of law on arbitrary laws. It states that any law which was passed based upon a belief in erroneous facts by the legislative body is an arbitrary law and unconstitutional.“

Thanks for this posting. Some of these thoughts have swirled in my grey matter (existing both intra- and extra-cranial anymore), but I never really dug much into it. You make a very good point in that the moron-skis have nailed themselves down with a “fact” known to be false. It’s still tough to counter rational-basis review, which says, “if there’s even one instance of it being true, it’s rational and thus allowed legislation,” which is truly quite irrational!

Still and again, however, the toughest part is getting someone (read: a court) to pay attention to the facts, not the emotions. That’s happening more and more, thankfully. And like any other trend, the more it happens, the more it happens. Momentum continues on our side.

So I braced myself and Googled my name again this evening, as I do every few months or so; I am very diligent about keeping my name off those people-search type sites (whitepages, spokeo, etc.). I was shocked to discover that I somehow have a new sex offender profile on instant checkmate, a site I previously opted my info out of (my name still doesn’t show up in a search on the site itself, interestingly enough; I guess the sex offender profiles are separate). And by new, I mean it posted my Megan’s Law profile from like a decade ago when I first registered in that city, a city I haven’t lived in in years. And it begs the question, why now? And from where did they scrape this information? After all, I don’t appear on the CA Megan’s Law site anymore since I left the state a couple years ago. I called the 800 number to ask what was up and if I could opt out, and the woman told me they cannot remove sex offender records, citing the usual drivel about public records. Isn’t it lovely how we get such special treatment? Nothing about murderers, DUI offenders, gang-bangers, or armed robbers though, of course. Just former sex offenders. Par for the course.

I fail to understand the public benefit in hosting this vastly-outdated information, or even hosting it period, since there are already official government . While it’s true that it’s a record of a factual event, what is the benefit to John and Jane Q. Citizen of the city in question in learning this information about a long-departed registered citizen? And for Instant Checkmate to tell me they don’t take down SO information at all, for any reason, just defies logic. Do they really think they’re doing a public service? And what are they getting out of it? I wish someone with hacking skills could do a public service by taking their site down, along with those of their fellow travelers.

By the way, I saw that mugshots dot com is still up as of this writing, although they’ve apparently been de-listed by Google, since my mugshots dot com profile didn’t show in a search of my name.

They must have just put it back up, It was down for around a week or so. I guess we shouldn’t be surprised it’s back.

I have a strong suspicion that IC scraped my mugshot from mugshots dot com. It’s the only way I can think of. So they scraped 2nd-hand information from a dubious source, a source whose owners have been indicted on extortion and other charges. I’m thinking I should call IC back.

Regardless, it’s good that at least our mugshots profiles have been de-indexed from Google searches.

“I called the 800 number to ask what was up and if I could opt out, and the woman told me they cannot remove sex offender records, citing the usual drivel about public records.”

Email that woman back and tell her: “YOU are the actual monster that the public thinks I am..”


Brock Turner’s twisted legacy—and a Stanford professor’s relentless pursuit of justice.

Recall election is next week, right?

If we could get registered citizens posted in the neighborhoods of legislators they would probably do something about these websites.