ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings


CA: Gov. Brown signs Wilk’s sex offender bill into law

Gov. Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill 1199 into law Monday evening, an attempt to correct the way Jessica’s Law led to a disproportionate number of sexual offenders being released to rural areas.
The bill’s author, Scott Wilk, R-Santa Clarita, said the bill addresses an unintended consequence, which created a burdensome and unfair situation in several parts of the 21st Senate District, which he represents, as well as rural communities throughout the state. Full Article

Join the discussion

  1. AO

    I’m less interested about this bill and a whole lot more interested about SB 1036.

    How do they reconcile the this bill with the SO registry releasing all this information?

    “SB 1036 would “prohibit the … personal information, as defined, of a pupil or of the parent or guardian of a pupil in the minutes of a meeting of the governing body … if a pupil who is 18 years of age or older or a parent or guardian of a pupil has provided a written request to the secretary or clerk of the governing body to exclude his or her personal information or the name of his or her minor child, as specified.”

    Wilk said a grandmother who spoke during the public comment portion of an SUSD meeting — expressing her opinion regarding a book that had offended her — later learned that her residential address had been published as part of the official record of the meeting’s minutes.

    The woman felt that in “today’s political climate” it was not a good idea to have her personal information published without her expressed consent.

    “Personal information,” according to SB 1036, “includes a person’s address, telephone number, date of birth and email address.”

    • mike r

      Yeah this cannot really be used for anything though. It is not something a court would make a connection with, but it does demonstrate that personal information is private and I believe that your current address, current photo, current vehicle, scars, tattoos, etc. are protected liberty interest.

      The SO bill is stupid also, doesn’t even address the residency restrictions for parolees. I think they are going to run onto a problem when they try and place one of these offenders in the city of origin and find that there is no where that is compliant with Jessica’s Law. Stupid, once again but this may very well be able to be used in our favor in that they are stating in the language of the bill that it would help integrate back into society and lays out how you are better off being able to have support from family etc. which is completely undermined by the registry…See this is the kind of weapons we need to use, their own language in the laws and their own reports. I am telling you In Re Taylor is a benchmark and a perfect example of irrational laws and the thresh hold that must be met to establish to pass that incredibly high bar. Government reports and judicial notice along with personal experiences that hinder reintegration and are even counterproductive. That is exactly what struck down residency restrictions in Taylor and I really cannot see how the CA SC could find any other way on the registry issue when you have the same exact types of reports only by order of magnitude. I still say it is impossible and if they tried to uphold the registry in CA it would be a clear violation of equal protection, you cannot set a bar for one statute and not apply that bar to any and all statutes. The only difference that they could possibly say is that the public interest is greater or some crap, but there is no way that would fly. Taylor set a precedent, a lot of people may not understand or believe it but it is the standard set by precedent in the CA SC for a law to be struck down for irrationality. This is huge man, nowhere in the records has a court so definitely defined what the threshold for the irrationality test. It is the Mendoza-Martinez factor (if you do not know, this is SCOTUS’s standard punishment test) but for irrationality instead of the punishment thresh hold. It is a slam dunk and I am even thinking about filing for summary judgement on this issue. I think it is that solid. Shi*^^ all you have to do is take the damn decision verbatim and remove the residency references and add registry and replace the Gov reports on residency restrictions and replace them with Gov reports on the efficacy of the registry and then you throw in the recidivism stats and the myth presented in Smith/McKlune as well just for good measure and it is done. Take my word it is a slam dunk. I really may file while I am waiting for the federal court as well, I just need to figure if I can do that and what effects it will have on my fed case. Matter of fact I think I will just type it up and put it on my site and any of you brave American Patriots who want to stand up and fight may have access to. Like I stated, just cut and paste registry in place of residency and replace the gov reports with the registry gov reports and done. File………..Summary judgement is a little more intense with the statement of undisputed facts and they way it has to be chronologically, but it is not that hard, I have done one before people and any of you with the will and the common sense can do it as well.

  2. Eric

    The article doesn’t really say what the bill does. Does it abolish the 2000 ft rule in urban areas? That would be great and a step in the direction of a civilized society moving away from the witch hunt.

  3. Tim Moore

    So they want to keep out a group of convicted people that has about the lowest rate of re-offense of any, but who cares if there are plain old habitual deadly weapon assaulters, wife beaters, robbers or dui’s living among us?

  4. Eric

    Just looked up the text of the bill 1199. It says that when the SO is released from custody. every effort reasonable will be made to release them to the city they were last living in before incarceration. So this is good, it should put pressure on any existing residency restrictions to be abolished because they just make it difficult for an SO to assimilate. Once again Governor brown is throwing us a bone and moving towards eliminating the horridly oppressive registry.

  5. AnotherAnon

    Well, this is familiar in a way. “5) The unauthorized release or receipt of the information described in this subdivision is a violation of Section 11143.”

    But check this out:

    § 11142 Any person authorized by law to receive a record or information obtained from a record who knowingly furnishes the record or information to a person who is not authorized by law to receive the record or information is guilty of a misdemeanor.

    Does this mean is guilty of a misdemeanor due to furnishing the record to us since we are forbidden that fruit?

    Also interesting:

    § 11143 Any person, except those specifically referred to in Section 1070 of the Evidence Code , who, knowing he is not authorized by law to receive a record or information obtained from a record, knowingly buys, receives, or possesses the record or information is guilty of a misdemeanor.

    Am I guilty of a misdemeanor if I look at the records publishes?

    What a mess.

    • Sunny

      You make a relevant point, although I suspect the prohibition on registrants using the registry is symbolic. I can’t find any indication any registrant has ever been prosecuted for accessing the Megan’s Law website.

      Also from personal experience, in January of this year I was on the phone with a Megan’s Law office clerk named Anna and I started asking her about my status as “zip code only” on the website and she simply responded that I “shouldn’t be looking at that website.” I nonetheless continued to describe my information on the site. Nothing came of it. They don’t care.

      I believe that law is unenforceable and would never stand up to constitutional challenge. In some ways I wish it were enforced because, as you just explained, it would effectively put an end to these third party commercial sites trying to exploit us.

      • AnotherAnon

        @ Sunny There was at least one arrest for accessing the California Megan’s Law website. An RC was looking for a date. No kidding. I guess someone reported him because they didn’t like his advances or flirting. I think Janice mentioned she plans to take up this ban at some point and said it interferes with legal research due to being unable to check the accuracy of the list as applied to the individual.

        But symbolic or not, the letter of the law is the letter of the law. Could this be a way to shutdown the vultures of Megan’s Law? Maybe, maybe not. It certainly strikes me as being illegal to dish out the forbidden fruit. City-data cannot claim to be republishing the entire list for purposes of public safety. Who is at risk from whom? No, it’s all about the $.

      • Tim Moore

        I think it could come up when petitioning to get off the California registry with the new tiered system as a reason to deny you.

  6. Will Allen

    I can’t see any legitimate reason that a person could not look at any $EX Offender Registry simply because the person is listed on an $OR. It’s not legitimate. Any government that supports that needs to be sued. Any person who supports that is a stunning idiot and a disgusting “person”. Pretty clear cut.

  7. USA

    Great article! You should be more concerned about the new law the governor signed (the bail law). It’s rather disturbing. If you now get arrested for a minor offense or misdemeanor in Ca, you will probably be released. If you get arrested for a Felony or sex crime, you can’t get out! Bail no longer exists! It’s up to a Judge to determine if you can be released or not! In my view, this might tempt DA’s to overcharge as a bargain chip etc. In my view, it’s scary! Also, it will basically abolish bail companies!

  8. Jack

    All that bill does is give more power to this state’s fascist parole board. If you’ve got a 288 on your record they say they won’t let you live within 35 miles of the victim. Sounds like a holocaust to me.

  9. Laura

    Is this a positive or a negative? I’m not sure. Negative thought – Most likely Santa Clarita is trying to keep registrants out of there backyard since Santa Clarita most likely has more open space (than the cities south of them) where registrants or family of registrants can purchase homes, land to live. Positive – This will help put pressure on all those cities south of Santa Clarita to work on lessening restrictions since they will perhaps be required to allow those listed to have a home…hopefully.

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 *