CA: ACSOL Supports Senate Bill to Terminate Registration Requirements

The Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws (ACSOL) has agreed to support Senate Bill 145 that would provide judges with the authority to terminate the requirement to register for individuals convicted of some sex offenses.  The authority would be limited to circumstances in which the age difference between the offender and the victim is 10 years or less provided that the victim is at least 14 years old.

“Senator Scott Wiener, author of the Tiered Registry Law, is also author of Senate Bill 145,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci.  “ACSOL supports Senate Bill 145 because it will allow judges discretion, when warranted, to end registration requirements for individuals whose age was within 10 years of their victims.”

Attached is a copy of the ACSOL letter.  Members and supporters of ACSOL are encouraged to send their own personally worded letters of support to the Senate Public Safety Committee via FAX to 916-445-4688 or via U.S. mail to State Capitol, Room 2031, Sacramento, CA 95814.

SB 145 – Bill Language

SB 145 – Letter to Sen Pub Safe – Feb 2019_000146

Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. 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.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. 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. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  19. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
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.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Interesting. So a 24-year-old who has sex with a 14-year-old may benefit from this, but not anyone guilty of CP, or in my case, an upskirt picture.

I do hope this passes though as it will help some people as well as put a dent in the registry armor. Any movement away form the registry is a good movement no matter how little it is.


Now can someone support legislation for dismissed records to petition off?

Baby steps, I know

As expected, Wiener did to us what he did in the tiered registry…if you’re convicted for 288.3 as a result of an internet sting, this bill will probably not help you. In fact, if you look at the wording, almost everyone who this bill can help is already going to be Tier 1 or 2 anyway. My only current hope is that I can get a COR granted before the tiered registry goes into effect.

I keep saying it, and it holds true…it’s time to support abolishing the registry, not bills that may or may not help a few and leave that to the discretion of an elected official.

While this bill will not affect me personally, I am generally in support of any measure that will provide relief from registration for anyone. I hope and pray this will pass!

How would this bill effect someone with an Indecent Exposure Charge where no minors were involved, and there really wasn’t a true victim, plus he/she is not on the public site AND has that offense expunged?

Anything to give the power back to the judges where it belongs.

I think it would be much more beneficial to promote a bill for anyone with an expungement to be released from the registry.

Also, it would be easier for the politicians to vote for something like this because a judge would have to already determined an individuals character and a much easier pitch to and acceptance from the public ie voters.

It seems that anyone which would benefit from the current proposed bill has already obtained an expungement therefore an expungement bill would open the door a little wider.

I believe that there’s already a law in effect here in California that precludes the state from denying anyone with an expungement from obtaining a state license. More so an expungement bill makes sense

Mr. Wiener please consider an expungement bill.

While this bill may seem positive on its face, it will not change that the registry is a total and complete waste of time, effort, and money. No adjustment or amendment to it is going to make it useful for the public or law enforcement.

Besides, what do you want to bet that some judges will somehow find/create a way force registration on applicable individuals despite this bill? And in future prosecutions, DAs will simply charge a different offense that will require registration to get around this bill’s provisions.

I guess an elected official showing times have changed enough that watering down the current scheme a little is a good sign. The problem is if it gets watered down enough that it hurts chances to challenge the entire scheme in court.

I cant say why in a public forum, but this one needs to pass. Those who know me have to trust me on this or discuss privately. If it gets shot down I can probably talk about it after that unless it is likely to be re submitted.

I see this as a move in the right direction, although it doesn’t affect me. It would happen with a lot of the Romeo and Juliet type cases.

If they had something in place when I was a young kid I wouldn’t be dealing with the registry now.

Reminds me the determining factors on the NY assessment. Where if you had committed your crime while under the age of 25 or less than 10 years older than the victim (I can’t remember offhand what it was)it increases the points you get and puts you at a higher risk level somehow.

How about introducing a bill that states no employer is allowed to conduct a background check for a potential employee that includes a registry check? Loo k at all the background check companies that include that in their report. 290 already says it can’t be used but yet no one is denying them access to that information when it comes to checking employees. Lets grow a pair and focus on that especially if there is no longer a “record.” If people complain it is public record, it still can’t be used for employment purposes. Here, I will write it since everyone seems to be scared.

I hope this Bill passes it just makes it easier to terminate your duty to register in the state of California

Anyone who can make sense of this, what are the actual crimes that are included in this relief bill? 288pc is what it looks like to me. Not sure I’m understanding it correctly.

I’m happy about this too as some others are. It’s at least chipping away at the registry. Ultimately we all want to see it gone today. But why can’t we sometimes add a few more details to these new bills to make the wheel of progress speed up a bit? I applaud the efforts of the Senator Scott Wiener and especially you Janice! We can’t stop or slow down. As things are changing, and our empirical evidence of recidivism and other information seems to be getting out and helping, there does seem to be more and more acceptance to the ideas that all sexual offenses are not to be lumped together, or this bill and other advances would not be moving forward as they have been. If we are going to knock these out based on more understanding and acceptance, should we not add some other details to these bills so it can help more people and knock the numbers down? I know we can’t do it all in one bill. But let’s say that besides the 10 year difference in age, we also include those folks that have been registered for life due to a single urinating in public charge. Or other crazy reasons people end up on the registry.


Why’d I move to Nevada?

I just got my notification saying I’m tier 2.

Which is crap, because one of my victims ages wouldn’t even be a crime here in Nevada. So logically they should only be looking at the other victim who’s age of consent is lower than Nevada’s