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 2019

Comments that are not specific to a certain post should go here, for the month of May 2019. Contributions should relate to the cause and goals of this organization and please, keep it courteous and civil. This section is not intended for posting links to news articles without additional comment.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

If a state has residency restrictions, but not presence restrictions, is it legal to go to nature preserves/parks? I’m just looking to fish and hike. Thanks.

Which state? On supervision?

I have Kentucky and Indiana in mind. I’m not on any supervision.

Logic would normally indicate that no presence restrictions means parks and preserves are okay. However, when it comes to RC laws, logic is suspended and doesn’t apply. Heck, even if someone today told you all is well and good, by the time you show up tomorrow some bureaucrat could have exercised legislatively-granted authority and said they’re off limits.

Have you read the Statutes of the States of interest? That should give you a fairly solid idea of what’s taboo and what’s not. Sadly it doesn’t always give all answers, because the previously mentioned bureaucrat may have rules and regulations that aren’t readily available…until you actually register. I know of an example where there’s a presence prohibition that is not in the Statutes, but *is* part of the registration doc and was promulgated by the chump in charge of the Registry. (BTW, what a badge of honor to be head of the ML division of whatever agency. I’m sure mom & dad are so proud!)

From what little short thing I just read……
for Kentucky you cant be on school grounds or day cares without permission.
Indiana does not show any presence restrictions
from here

In Indiana you can go almost anywhere, except extra school programs as long as you’re not on probationer parole. Granted, my conviction was 19 years ago so I was grandfathered in as far as laws. I do know its tougher there for new registrants.

Does anyone know if California will start publishing 647.6 online for people who havent lived in the state for years?

They don’t list you if you are deregistered from CA regardless of the conviction.

I wanted to post a final comment before I leave this site.
Over the past several years this site has become a sounding board for the same dull rhetoric. “ abolish the Registry”, “ Travel is impossible”, “ This is so unfair”.
While all of that is certainly true, none of it is going to change. There are still laws on the books that forbid people from stepping on a dog sleeping on sidewalks( look it up) so laws that make many of our lives basically unmanageble are here to stay.
You either accept and live in it or remove yourself from the environment causing the stress. I have chosen the later.
My immigration attorney informed me earlier this week that my work visa had been approved for Thailand. I had worked there for many years and have many references from people that pull some weight.
Since my offense was an internet misdomeanor and years have passed, the powers that be are allowing me back.
My hell is almost over. ICE can send all the notices they want. They can stamp whatever they want on my visa/passport. I will be able to stand in front of my wife’s urn and tell her I love her.
I wish all of you a path to peace, how ever you define that word.

“No Comment”: So let me get this straight; you spend your time on this site informing us that there is “no hope” and that any efforts we make towards challenging this terrible system will be for naught. In other words, waging a psychological war against those who are trying to advance justice. That makes me quite suspicious right there. Then you tell us that you have managed to get out from underneath this hell but in a way in which few others could benefit. That’s what I call a lot of fucking nerve! I remain deeply suspicious of you, your stated circumstances and your motivations. Good riddance to you and your malevolent psy-ops!

Well, glad you will be able to get away from the harassment.

I do feel like most of these laws will be around for decades. But that is no reason to accept them. I could try to leave America. But F that. This is my country and I prefer to get rid of people who think Registries are okay.

I’ve said it a billion times but America has always been a stupid, hateful country, for our entire history. We done all kinds of terrible, stupid, immoral things to the hated people of the moment. These Registries are just a continuation of that. I’d like to try to make our country decent for once. Can it be one of the more decent countries in the world? Hard to see, but maybe. And I’m not sure I’m helping either.

These laws are unacceptable and I am going to make people directly pay for their existence. I will continue to target individuals and do what I can to lower the quality of their lives. The Registries are going to do nothing useful and cost. Do not let people who support Registries live in peace. They don’t deserve it.

664-288(a) I have my Certificate of Rehab underway with the LADA office. They have a Cert of Rehab division that works with US to get US off the Registry and our Clean Passports back. I have been told it could take 7-8 months to get the paperwork done and in front of a Judge. There is hope for some of US and I want to make sure we all get on the road to freedom.

Good for you. All the best during this time.

MOT ~ What is LADA, and where is this office? My fiancé will be eligible to apply for a COR in 2020, pretty much a few month before the Tiered Registry will go into effect. Would it be worth trying for the COR or would it be better to wait for 2021 and the Tiered Registry? Does LADA charge for the COR? We would prefer not having to go in front of a judge since it is so intimating and humiliating as the judge will surely make him feel like the worst of the worst. We also have moved on from our previous friends and would not want to ask any new friends for letters of recommendations as they don’t know our situation, and we’d like to keep it that way. Any suggestions are greatly appreciated. I still don’t know why one has to petition to get off the registry. With the Tiered Registry, it should be automatic once your time is up. Isn’t that the whole purpose of the Tiered Registry, to get people off since it has become so huge and unmanageable?

Someone who cares,
I applied for COR in 2014 and was refused in Orange county, only chance oberstien has ever got a COR in the OC. Now in LA they are giving them, if it is a misdemeanor and not other offenses, it should be granted. I would wait till mid 2020 and see the progress we are making then make your decision. If you just wait and petition in 2021 they have to give a good reason to not grant it, although a COR is digressionary per judge which I don’t like. Chance and Janice will know what courts are granting COR’s in 2020. I think things will loosen up in 2020-2021.

BA ~ Thank you! I know this is probably a really silly question, but do you have to reside in LA to obtain a COR there rather than Orange County? Could we apply in LA even though we live in OC, and the offense was in OC?

After 10 years of being transient thanks to what started as a parole requirement, I may finally be able to have an actual home to move into. Has anyone had any issues or problems moving into any of the following cities after being transient?

My potential cities I can get a house in are:
Long Beach
La Mirada

Sad…someone actually asking for help gets no replies while talk of a SNL skit does.

I have been a long time Resident of LBC… rent is extremely high and lack of parking.. But has for Restrictions and Enforcements after completion of parole/probation ..
Long Beach has “placed” distance from schools, care centers, and parks on hiatus.. Has for finding a place you either will get approved or denied by property management.
You can be at parks, beaches, tourist attractions.. but for the schools they all use the Raptor program and it’s a get in jail free card if you step on school property. Also if you fail to inform college campus police, get in jail free card.. Alot of places of worship don’t question, except for anything Jewish (apparently that religion is totally anti sex offender) that also goes for their form of YMCA.. Don’t even think about going to the YMCA.. Has for libraries they have no problem.
Being a transient means you be visiting the LBPD weekly or monthly. From my visits there they are “professional” finger prints and forms.. but they do come by your place every month for the first 5 to 6 years, the after that they just usually call you to confirm your address and if the phone number is good then after 16 years they seem to just lose interest in you and just call your number 2 hrs after re registration.

Old article about discrimination, but very relevant and disturbingly relatable. It references ethnic groups singled out for xenophobic reasons and political gain It mentions the term “othering” which I feel we are the highest form of “othering.”

“The language being used by many national leaders not only activates people’s anxiety and fear around a perceived Other, it creates new processes of exclusion and dehumanisation”

This seems to have gotten overlooked

False sexual assault allegation leads to man’s death

LOGAN CITY, Utah (ABC4 News) – The Logan Police Department is investigating a possible false sexual assault accusation that led to a 62-year-old man’s death.

Maybe it’s time for a false sexual assault accusation registry?


There used to be an active blogspot blog, COTWA, which addressed what you’re referring to. It’s been nearly two years since a post but they had the same idea which you and Harold Krieg mention about such a list. As I told him, under the 1st Amdmt, anyone can do that, but just suggest ensure they did falsely accuse before publishing their name.

As for the gentleman in the article, I recommend researching his name and reading the other articles on him, i.e. he was weeks away from possibly being removed from the registry. He truly was a victim of vigilante justice from an alleged false accusation (DA reviewing the reports). I’d say, if the public can have a say in justice, calling the DA office and state AG to ensure a full review is done would be imperative with possible adult charges placed. I say that because this could be used by the #metoo movement without the second part being noted or the recidivism rate argument, etc. I hope they charge the brother too as an adult for a degree of homicide. He knew what he was doing as did she.

I did not mean a blog, but mandated ones just like the S.O. ones.


If you want a mandated one, then work through the legislature to get the idea started. In the meantime, an unofficial one can be created using pubic data like City Data or Home Facts.

Using those two sources is meant to show an example of websites using public data already available for their own uses.

I thought I’d post this to show just how crazy Floridah cops can be. “Man arrested for obscene bumper sticker”. This has made worldwide news. It is clearly a freedom of speech case based on one cops poor definition of obscenity. And apparently this cop felt he could also charge the guy for resisting the police by not following the cops unconstitutional demands. Unfortunately, on Thursday the DA dropped the case and it will never get in front of a judge. (I would have liked to see the courts hear this case so this wouldn’t happen again). They definitely have a law that needs to define obscenity and resisting the police. Hopefully the man arrested will be able to win a civil suit against the county to recover all his money loss from bail and towing charges. The sheriff’s office still stands behind their arrest.

Personally, I’m glad the cop harassed him. He was being aggressive and got called on it.
Sometimes people are just asking for it and deserve the consequences.

I agree. People like this are nothing more than attention whores, stirring up shit, trolling for attention only to hide behind the 1st Amendment.

“attention whores, stirring up shit, trolling for attention” is not against the law. If it were, better start arresting half the “internet”.

And the First Amendment applies even to these people. Claiming it is hardly “hiding” behind it.

It is for those people, whom we least like or find respectable, that the First Amendment was created. That’s the whole point of a First Amendment, that there not be an exception for the unsavory or the offensive.

I haven’t read further of this to know how he had been obnoxious – and I’m sure that he is and was, but if this is a 1st amendment case then a) His personality is irrelevant and b) His message is irrelevant.

If he didn’t commit any crime, then our willingness to look the other way while muttering “He had it coming to him,” is to disrespect the Bill of Rights which exhorts us to leave him alone, even if to his delusions or demons.

P.S. Now, after reading about this, I’ll probably come back and say, “Yeah, the motherfucker had it comin’!” 🙂

Pretty sure it is spelled “Floriduh”.

Will Allen. you’re right, my mistake. Lol

It was amazing to see this story made Saturday’s SNL’s news stories. I must say I’m surprised by the comments here. Where in any of the news stories did it say this man was being aggressive? This man was pulled over for a bumper sticker because of a vague law on obscenity. He pissed off the cop because he would not remove the sticker. The law doesn’t define the difference between obscenity and free speech, so it was left to law enforcement to make up their own definition. I definitely don’t feel his sticker was obscene and the DA in this case didn’t think so either. This law was poorly defined and needs to be changed. Poorly defined definitions on obscenity have also got many people here convicted on obscenity charges.

Aggression, to me, means infringing on another’s rights. The cop determined that this man had no right to post vulgarity on his vehicle according to state law.
It is the duty of law enforcement to protect our rights, under the law, which he did.
The driver has a right to be heard in court to protest violation of his rights by the officer.
The driver did admit that some people might agree that his sign was vulgar but the law is wrong and needs to be changed because it infringes on his rights.
I call that BS and I think the court will agree.

Q: So exactly what is obscenity / vulgarity?
A: We can’t tell you but we know once we see it.

Getting arrested in order to “getting” your day in court in order to “get the chance” to clear yourself of ill defined charges is one of the true signs of banana republic.

There are soooo many bumper stickers I am “subjected to” that I find more objectionable than this one. Who protects MY rights?

Don’t come to Spain. Jesus H. I had no idea the laws here. Do. Not. Come.

Please explain??? As a person planning to travel to Spain with a marked passport I need more info than this please!

I’m confused. I was in Spain less than a month ago, with a marked passport, and had no issues.

Here’s a link so you can see the traffic stop and arrest yourself. This has made him famous worldwide. People wave, give thumbs up and honk when he is seen driving around now. He still has the sticker on his truck and is planning on filing a lawsuit. I read the law he was arrested for and from how I read it, the law was talking about obscene pictures. I don’t think the legislator had free speech in mind. The officers sergeant was not familiar with the law (except for a quick review) when he told the officer to go ahead and arrest him. I feel the officer should have followed the U.S. Constitution about protected free speech above any untried interpretation of state law. You will see that this man was polite and cooperative throughout the stop and arrest (except he would not remove his sticker).
This is the Police Dash Cam only:

He was pulled for that on his truck?! Crazy but SCOTUS has said LE can misinterpret or even not know the law when they are attempting to enforce it whether from a vehicle or the desk by the doughnut box & water cooler/coffee pot.

However, if I was the guy, I would ask the officer which dictionary definition he was thinking of when he was pulling over the guy. There are only of five them:

Even better, when it goes to court, I hope the guy picks one of the lesser inflammatory (by our American puritanical public standards) definitions for the judge to hear.

He will likely never see any court. Too bad. All criminal charges were dropped and I would imagine that the civil lawsuit will be quietly settled out of court. This would have been a great trial to watch.

The bumper sticker story and several other interesting articles, I found over on a web-mag called “Reason”.
I also came across another article in the Washington Post, an editorial dated January 12, 2018 by Andrea J. Ritchie. Which covers another aspect, left quietly alone.
I point these articles out, not to incite, but rather to draw attention to the fact. That it only takes a few individuals, to sway opinions one way or another. And we are all covered by the fallout from these articles.

As long as I have been reading the comments on this site, I should know this but I don’t. We traded in our old car and bought a new one over the weekend. The car we traded was the one I listed on the registration form I filled out last month. Does anyone know how many days you have until you have to notify LE. The detective I talked to this morning, said to just bring in the license number and vin number when I get it from DMV. Then said it was no big deal, just list it on the registration form when I register on my birthday. I don’t trust the fucker, I need to cover my ass, just in case!

I am not sure which state you are living in, but Florida gives you 48 hours and if you do not update with the DMV AND the County Sheriff registration office the penalty is 6 months house arrest with a GPS bracelet, first offence It is also considered strict liability whether on papers or off.

I’ve been registering since ’94 and vehicle changes are only necessary during one’s annual. No one has ever indicated otherwise.

As far as I know, and we are in CA, you only have to report a new vehicle at your annual registration.

I’m in Contra Costa co. California

Yes, in CA you just update vehicles at your annual. If the car’s registered in your name, the cops will be notified of your status if they run your plate regardless.

We have another question, and hopefully, someone here is smarter than us 🙂 So, what happens if we have to register in CA but would like move to AZ where his offense is not subject to registration. Would he still have to register in CA, would he get deregistered in CA? Would AZ make him register since he has to register in CA? It is so confusing.

@someone who cares:
We have another question, and hopefully, someone here is smarter than us 🙂 So, what happens if we have to register in CA but would like move to AZ where his offense is not subject to registration. Would he still have to register in CA, would he get deregistered in CA?
From recent posts on here, CA does de-register people.

Would AZ make him register since he has to register in CA?
You’ll have to consult AZ law. A handful of States require having to follow the greater of their or the convicting State’s registration period. If so, CA’s duration would apply in AZ. That said, it’s my opinion that’s a unconstitutional and ripe for a federal lawsuit. Treating migrants differently than natives is patently unconstitutional, as re-affirmed in Saenz v. Roe ( There’s a case still pending in IN Federal Court about this sort of topic, and the District Judge in that case also relied on Saenz in is partial Opinion. In other words, AZ may screw you over and force registration, but if you sue, you should be able to win. BTW, Saenz was a SCOTUS overrule of the 9th CCoA, so they should be quite aware of it. 😀

A challenge based on Saenz v Roe against a state that applies a discriminatory classification to newcomers to deny them the same privileges and immunities enjoyed by other citizens of their new State (e.g., duty to register, length of registration, differences in restrictions, etc) would most likely be defended by the state as a compelling governmental interest based on public safety. That would just be their automatic, default position, because if it were accepted by the court, they would need expend no effort, and would have nothing to prove. That’s usually enough to guarantee a win for the state in challenges to registration statutes. Because “civil regulatory law”, “public safety”, “not punishment”, “rational basis review” and “sex offender” almost always equals a win for the government.

But I don’t think they can prevail on that basis alone. Saenz v Roe says that a discriminatory classification upon newcomers to the state is itself a penalty that violates the right to travel, which includes the right to be treated equally as a US citizen. Thus, it is a 14th amendment equal protection violation, and the law that imposes the penalty is subject to strict scrutiny because a fundamental right is implicated.

To survive strict scrutiny, the government must show that the law is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.

In the Indiana case you mentioned, the court found that the plaintiff’s were likely to prevail on their equal protection and due process claims against the state of Indiana, and enjoined the state from enforcing its registration laws against the plaintiffs, or taking any action against them for failure to register.

That was in April of 2017. The case is 16-2865 – HOPE et al v. COMMISSIONER OF THE INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION et al. As far as I know, that is where it sits right now. The pace at which this challenge is moving, especially considering that it implicates a fundamental right, is agonizingly slow. However, if the plaintiffs eventually win, the state will surely appeal. Indiana is in the 7th circuit, which seems lately to favor the state over plaintiffs in sex offender cases. Maybe this case will be different.

I wonder how this kind of challenge might play out if a state denied certain privileges and immunities to its own residents that it grants to citizens who relocate to it from another state? Texas requires its own residents who were granted deferred adjudication for sex offenses in violation of Texas statutes to register, yet does not require registration of people who move to the state if their violation of the sex offense laws of the other state resulted in deferred adjudication.

CR, thanks for this analysis. Can you help me think through how this could impact Wisconsin, which requires anyone convicted there to register for life even if they move out of state? Meaning: ongoing annual paperwork and updates to residence, work, Internet identifiers etc etc, regardless of what your state of residence requires.

Here’s the thing: if you are convicted elsewhere and move to WI, you are required to register in WI until you move away. So if you are convicted in IL, move to WI, and then move to CA, then WI has a deregistration procedure when you leave WI—you only register there while you live there. But if you are convicted in WI and then move away, you maintain your duty to register forever, in addition to your state of residence. This is ridiculous but I think they justify it through their state’s strong victims rights laws… Wisconsin victims have a right to know where the offenders live and updates on “their offenders” are given to victims (I guess forever) through Wisconsin agencies.

Thanks for any thoughts you have. Also in the 7th circuit, I believe.

Your opening paragraph had me wondering what the heck you were talking about, as it sounded to me that you were saying there wasn’t any traction or issue one could attack. Then I read the rest. 🙂

Yes, Hope has been taking forever (as has hope…). I just checked PACER and there hasn’t been a document posted since mid-January 2019, and that was simply for withdrawal of legal counsel. From what I recall in reading a number of the docs in the case (and the quarterly PACER invoice to prove it!), a lot of time and effort has been spent arguing over whether or not the various County Sheriffs should be part of the suit as Defendants. They, of course, said no way because they were not State officials. The Plaintiffs said hell yes, because they were State actors, i.e. doing the work of the State agency at the local level. What I last read in the docs is that the judge ruled the Sheriffs are indeed de facto State officials as it applies here, and they are indeed Defendants, and they are indeed subject to any financial compensation the Plaintiffs may seek. IIRC, there is one Sheriff who caved in the fight and will not be stuck paying out. AT any rate, yes the case is going at a glacial pace, even for Federal Court. The 7th CCoA is certainly a concern, but given how slowly this case is taking, who knows what other precedents may be in its lap by the time it arrives. Beyond that, I am confident whoever loses at the 7th will appeal to SCOTUS. The fight is loooong from over, but for the time being, the advantage is with the Plaintiff RCs. (Side note: I also checked on Millard. Still no updates from the 10th.)

As for the ability to grant more to migrants than natives, I very vaguely recall a SCOTUS case where this was addressed. I can’t recall the specifics, but SCOTUS pretty much said it was fine. Their logic was providing a benefit above and beyond the norm is fine, but denying the norm is not (due to the 14th). Essentially SCOTUS said States are free to incentivize migration, but may not punish it. Twisted logic, but it kinda sorta made sense in the case, IIRC.

WI seems to function akin to NY and its “long arm” statutes. From the cursory digging I did into it–some REALLY dry reading, BTW, since most of it centers around insurance companies–there’s never been a case to resolve it. Some say such extraterritorial jurisdiction is unconstitutional, others say the constitution is silent on it so it’s fine. The thing that seemed to come up repeatedly was the ties one may still have with the regulating State. The fewer one has and the older they are, they better one could argue the State has no regulatory interest. However, that hasn’t ever been firmly decided. Sadly, the only way to find out would be to file suit which, if no longer in WI, makes things a little tougher just by distance.

@AJ — “Essentially SCOTUS said States are free to incentivize migration, but may not punish it.”

I did a cursory search, but didn’t find a case where they held that. Yet it sounds likely, so I don’t doubt it. The privileges and immunities clause doesn’t say anything about how a state may treat its own citizens, after all.

Still seems like an equal protection issue, somehow.

@E – Everything I have found about the power of a state to regulate nonresidents has to do with commerce, taxation, or privileges and immunities; areas in which federal law usually takes precedent over state law due to the express delegations of power in the constitution to the federal government, or to the people (e.g., privileges and immunities of citizens of the several states).

I haven’t yet been able to find examples of states imposing other types of regulatory law on residents of other states. But I’m sure there must be such cases out there. I’ll keep looking.

I’m sorry I cannot offhand recall the case nor the specific topic. If I stumble across it again, I’ll try to remember to keep the details. I wish I could at least recall the topic, as that would cut down on the possible cases. I tend go in spurts of voracious reading, so it sometimes becomes a blur unless I do something with the case at the time.

If you’re going to dig deeper into the extrajurisdictional laws, I suggest the rabbit hole of “long arm statute” or “long arm jurisdiction.” Note I did not say “recommend.” 😉 I personally believe a State could lose the case if one were able to push hard enough on the “connection” angle, or lack thereof.

Thanks guys. Wisconsin’s got people on a leash they can yank anytime they want. I don’t have the money… and I don’t live close enough to the damn state… to file for now but I appreciate your feedback! There’s no slam dunk here.

Someone who cares,
Can you guys update us when you get down to Arizona? I have been considering that state as a move for my boyfriend and I (he has a military conviction under appeal right now) and I was given lots of conflicting info. I did not talk to the Sheriff, however.

Trying to find answers ~ There is an organization called AZRSOL, and here is the link

Maybe, you could contact them to get more information. I googled the offenses that are subject to registration in AZ, and you would need to see if your boyfriend’s is listed. When you say, it’s under appeal right now, do you mean that he has been charged and convicted and you are trying to fight this? I am still learning myself, and I don’t think AZ would be a good state unless you are not required to register. I also want to contact an AZ lawyer to find out more information. I am unclear as to how a deregistration in CA would work. Do you find a place to live in AZ, then tell CA you are leaving for good and they remove you from the registry? What if you move back to CA, do you have to start registering again if you are eligible to be removed after 10 years once the Tiered Registry goes into effect? That almost seems too simple. Any input is appreciated.

Someone who cares,
Thanks so much for the website info! I will have to contact them. I had a devil of a time trying to get info about AZ, I originally thought he would not register there but I think I was misguided by a site saying they “may” not put it on the website. It seems to be at the discretion of the Sheriff who registers you there. I could only get one lawyer to call me back and he wasn’t too helpful. Hopefully you will have more luck!
It’s like they (and by they I mean all the states and the federal gov) make it super confusing on purpose so no one knows what to expect!
To answer your question- in the military, every conviction that ends in a putative discharge or more than a year of jail will get an automatic appeal. We thought originally that he wouldn’t be subject to register because of this but no… I was wrong. It took 3 years for the military to go ahead with the trial so I anticipate it will take several years for the appeal.
I wish you and your boyfriend the best of luck! Please update us on everything when you get there!

RE: Someone who cares and Trying to find answers.

De-registration in CA is no big deal as long as they are notified what new address you are moving to. But if you return to CA, you will need to re-register in CA no matter what until you have applied and approved to stop registering in CA. If you’re counting on the CA tiered registry to remove you in 10 years, be advised it is not automatic and “I think” you need to be a resident for the previous 10 years before applying. If you want off the registry completely and you have a qualifying crime under CA tiered registry, I would suggest not leaving CA until you have been relieved of the duty to register in CA. You’re just opening a big can of worms by moving to another state and being subject to that state’s ever changing laws. Other than the life registration requirement, CA is a lot better to registrants than many other states. There is no easy way out unless you find another country to accept you. *I’m going off my memory here, so anyone, please correct me if I misstated anything.

@Lake County:
““I think” you need to be a resident for the previous 10 years before applying.”
Though not disputing what you wrote, and noting you state it with caution, this would again almost assuredly be an unconstitutional act under Saenz v. Roe. In fact, though Saenz dealt with welfare benefits, it does seem to mirror that case in effect and harms…and is the same State that tried it in Saenz.

Obviously there isn’t anything to do about this until 2021, but anyone who falls under it the day the law is in effect maw well have some solid footing in a lawsuit.


Well no one has yet contested the current Certificate of Rehabilitation’s 10 year residency requirement. (5+5 for 290 offense).

@Lake County:
“Well no one has yet contested the current Certificate of Rehabilitation’s 10 year residency requirement. (5+5 for 290 offense).”
Just because nobody has challenged it, doesn’t mean it’s constitutional. Courts don’t reach out to find bad laws, and unless or until someone brings a case to a court, bad laws can, will, and do sit on the books for years.

Not knowing the ins and outs of the CoR, I don’t know if it would likewise apply. It all depends on how it’s written, but it would seem the logic SCOTUS applied in Saenz could apply to a CoR. Then again, if it is 10 years for all citizens, whether a migrant or a native, then there is no discrimination. (This could also hold for my earlier post to you, above.) It’s when there’s a higher standard for a migrant than a native that things get dicey. Where the State could get tripped up is if someone is convicted in CA, moves away, then returns to CA 10 years later and applies for the CoR. If CA denies it solely due to the person having migrated (i.e. exercising the fundamental right of Freedom to Travel), there could be a claim.

I assume the 10 years prior residency is so that CA has complete information of prior contacts with law enforcement and to ensure the registrant has not simply run off to a state with easier registration requirements prior to requesting removal in CA.

Got it. Thanks

Lake County ~ It is 5 years of residency in CA, plus 5 years for sex offenses. Some sex offenses only require an additional 2 years to have 7 years total residency. Our offense falls into the 7 years. I agree, it would probably be best to be removed from the CA registry before moving to AZ. But, could new laws in AZ make people having to register if they never had to before, and IF they are removed from the registry in CA? When is one ever safe from new laws being introduced?

someone who cares,
That’s the problem with following the rules. When we follow the current rules, they just change them on us. 10, 20, 30 years, Life, no matter what rules the politicians or courts make, the only thing we can be sure of is that the rules will always change again.

Lake ~ We have seen law changes over the years that effect registrants negatively, despite being ex post facto. However, I wonder if one is no longer required to register, can they all of a sudden come up with some law and put you back on? I don’t really think so. Its like someone who is drinking alcohol and they start making alcohol illegal again, and now arresting people who drink. I know, somewhat a silly example, but do you get my point?

@someone who cares:
Based on the the KS SC rulings three years ago, it would appear–at least in KS–that once off, off for good. On one particular Friday, the KS SC ruled in three cases that RC laws were ex post facto punishment, and the petitioners couldn’t be held to the increased burdens. Then that same day in a fourth Opinion, the KS SC ruled the RC laws are *not* punitive. Despite that fourth case, the rulings in the first three stand and those RCs are free from the effects of the fourth ruling.

“Don’t come to Spain. Jesus H. I had no idea the laws here. Do. Not. Come.”

WTH are you talking about?

We’ve talked about facial recognition and electronic surveillance here on this forum with Amazon in Oregon being the last story with many potential problems down the road. Here is one from CA where someone is using politics to get it banned city by city as he can:

The Man Behind San Francisco’s Facial Recognition Ban Is Working on More. Way More.

San Francisco Bans Facial Recognition Technology

I wrote my Senator about facial recognition and how DHS is going apesh!t with it. I included the URL about the JetBlue incident. Instead of the form email reply, I actually got a call from one of the Senator’s aides. That typically means it’s something about which a Congressperson is interested.

Thanks @AJ for that update and showing other positive feedback from Congress when approached. I remember you mentioning you’re doing that.

A follow up on this the facial recognition topic with NY now the focus since they are in the midst of the consideration.

“When the American Civil Liberties Union tested the Amazon facial recognition tool against members of Congress, 28 legislators were falsely matched with people in a mug shot database. People of color — including six members of the Congressional Black Caucus — were disproportionately represented among the 28.”

San Francisco Banned Facial Recognition. New York Isn’t Even Close.

I suppose this would make sense since NY is looking at banning texting and walking across a street now (but not the first US city to do it). Looking at your phone would prohibit from having your face scanned by the cameras overhead because you are looking down and not ahead.

Forget public health crisis of walking distracted, it is all about Big Nanny Gov’t (to quote Will Allen) ensuring they are can do their jobs with full view of our mugs while drinking coffee from their mugs and eating doughnuts.

What a surprise! It figures….

Amazon shareholders vote to continue selling facial recognition tech to police

We are heading to the world of Amazon based everything.

We’ll soon be getting dirty looks and then subsequently be ushered out of Target and Walmart as their loss prevention goons already employ this technology. I predict within 2 years they will publicly announce a blanket ban for all those on the registry which will only help bolster the argument that Megan’s law is undeniably punitive. It will all reach critical mass soon they way things are going.

There were a number of proposals at AMZN’s shareholder meeting, and they were all shot down. Heck, Bozo himself wouldn’t even personally address them and deflected answering them later when addressing the convocation.

However…a headline this morning gives me hope:
It seems our illustrious leaders, in both Upper and Lower Chambers, “get it.” Anytime you get AOC agreeing with Jim Jordan and Mark Meadows there’s hope of something coming out of the strange bedfellows. Privacy and surveillance are definitely issues swirling in the Capitol. Hopefully something comes of it. Of course it wouldn’t hurt if people wrote their Senators and Representatives. I plan to do so again, citing this hell-freezes-over moment as a rare bipartisan opportunity.


There was a story teaser on NPR morning edition today I heard and can’t find online in whole that said Congress was concerned about it as you show here. I agree with more people contacting their elected officials on this.

As @Facts said dirty looks, etc coming to a store near you.

I read about this 30 years ago, not ready for it now.

That Wasington Insider article was difficult to parse. It was practically gibberish, as though it had been machine-translated to English from some other language.


That’s a good read you posted by the Washington folks. Thanks for that. Good to see some elected officials catching a clue. Need more. I’m contacting my elected Congressionals.

Keep pushing…

How a facial recognition ban could come to your city soon

Activists across the country are pushing local governments to forbid the use of facial recognition.

My apologies for using that link. I had read a different one earlier in the day, but couldn’t find it again. I grabbed that one since 1) I knew it covered the topic and 2) it had no limits on viewing it (unlike NYT and WaPo). Yes, it does read as though written by the same people who write assembly instructions for cheap products from the Far East.

The point remains: far left and far right are in agreement that something needs to be done about privacy and surveillance. Time to hit the Sens. and Reps. hard about it.

I tried to find what you referenced and instead found something sad about the lack of progress on this front. Check out and look at the various headlines and dates of the stories. Lots of heat, no fire for way too long. Time to light some fires!

TK, I don’t often agree with my busybody San Francisco City Supervisors. They’ve dashed my hope for doing an AirBnB in my downstairs unit (of course, AirBnB also contributed to my disappointment in that regard) but I am gratified that they decided to ban facial recognition by local government although they can’t do anything about the Feds doing it here. Now if only they would ban license plate readers, too. I’m afraid that one is out of the barn door.

Im a “semi unlisted” which mean my full address does not show up on the Megan’s law website.
however my city and zip code does show up.
My zip code is in a very small area about 1,500 people live here.
I m wondering if they should just remove the city name and zip code.

In the old day they did not leave the date of conviction so people were assuming our crime was “yesterday” thanks Janice and her team for fixing this .

⭕ GENERAL REGISTRATION QUESTON: Does anyone know of an individual who was convicted of a registerable sexual offense, but had been legally DE-listed in the State in which they lived (call it State “X”), but had later been arrested for FTR in another State (State “”Z”) to which they moved some months or years after their official State X delisting?
I’m just wondering how it works if you are delisted in one state and you later move to another state (such as California that currently has lifetime registration for everyone). Do you then have to begin re-registering again? Or does your official delisting from State “X” apply to you wherever you go?

Does anyone know of any legal cases and how they turned out? ⭕

I would google around as it’s happened in NY and other locations. Now, one could argue that someone having to register after being released from registering in another state might have an equal protection claim, but you would need to pay a lawyer to get legal advice.

I don’t know of any cases, but I’ve considered the situation a time or two. To me, it all still hinges on the premise that registries are non-punitive regulatory schemes. For the most part, any State can regulate its citizens as it sees fit. That means despite State X saying you’re good to go, State Z could say you’re not. Given States primarily use one’s conviction as the means to regulate and compel registration and only secondarily use one’s registration status, I don’t believe any sort of removal from one State’s requirements will help in another State.

To my knowledge, many (most? all?) States have some sort of clause addressing if the offense would be registerable had it occurred in the subject State or if it’s a like offense to what is registerable. In other words, they take what you did, wherever you did it, then apply then apply the template of registerable offenses they have and go from there.

In my opinion, absent getting a removed or altered conviction, there’s no escape from whatever State Z may wish to do.

@David, I understand it exactly as AJ describes. That is how it works Texas. Anyone anywhere who manages to get relieved of the requirement to register wherever they currently live would still have to register in Texas if they came to live here and they met certain conditions.

Those conditions are spelled out in the Texas registration statutes. Regardless of where they were convicted, or where they are coming from, and regardless of whether or not they were registered in their former place of residence, a person who has a “[r]eportable conviction or adjudication … based on” a long list of violations of Texas statutes, OR who meets the following criteria would have to register:

(H) a violation of the laws of another state, federal law, the laws of a foreign country, or the Uniform Code of Military Justice for or based on the violation of an offense containing elements that are substantially similar to the elements of an offense listed under Paragraph (A), (B), (B-1), (C), (D), (E), (G), (J), (K), or (L), but not if the violation results in a deferred adjudication;

(I) the second violation of the laws of another state, federal law, the laws of a foreign country, or the Uniform Code of Military Justice for or based on the violation of an offense containing elements that are substantially similar to the elements of the offense of indecent exposure, but not if the second violation results in a deferred adjudication;

So while I don’t know of a particular case where someone was required to register in Texas, or in any other state, after being de-listed wherever they previously resided, I am sure that it happens. If a person who was relieved of a duty to register in their home state moved to a state where they are subject to registration under that state’s laws, and failed to do so, they could be charged with an FTR offense.

I am looking for help with a COR. I will be eligible in a few years I think, but am confused about the length of time before filing. Is it 10 yrs from conviction, release from jail, or release from probation. You fellow Vets will relate to this, it seems like I spend my time counting down until I can get out of this, just like we did when we were under a year in the military.

Dallas, TX, city council unanimously approved the Salvation Army to build a new campus.

The campus will be used as an emergency shelter, provide treatment for substance abuse and provide support for transitional and permanent housing for those coming out of homelessness.

Dallas city council required a deed restriction in order to appease critics of not in my back yard.

The deed restriction requires 24 hour security, improved lighting and requires the Salvation Army to not allow any sex offenders to stay on the property.

So now a city planning and zoning department at the orders of the city council are using a deed restriction to order a non-government entity to banish registered citizens from staying on a property.

May e people do, but it seems like no one stands up and asks why sex offenders are banned from these facilities while convicted child and wife beaters remain welcome?
Put these bastards on the spot. Make them go on record as being more tolerant of someone with convictions for mayhem against children than the now married couple convicted of having under age sex with each other. Effing bastards. Is it any wonder I love shows like The Sopranos and GoT? They’re full of sweet revenge.

AJ and Lake ~ Thanks for all the great information. I still have questions (and probably always will). So, if we were to move to AZ where his offense might not be a registrable offense (still have to do more research on that) and we De-Register in CA., would that mean he is off the registry as long as we never move back to California? If so, it seems a no brainer to leave CA, move to AZ and never look back.

If it were truly that easy, we’d all move to AZ. Most state registries say that if you’re required to register in the state you were convicted in, then you must also register in the state you are moving to. Although, I remember hearing that this is not always true. You will need to read AZ registration law online.

Here is a link to registration requirements:

This will apply to moving into AZ:
E. If a person who has been convicted of or adjudicated guilty for an offense in another state registers pursuant to section 13-3821, subsection A, the sheriff in the county in which the person registers shall forward the information to the chief law enforcement officer of the community in which the person resides. The chief law enforcement officer shall contact the state in which the person was convicted and shall obtain information regarding the person. After reviewing the information received and any other information available, the local law enforcement agency shall complete the risk assessment, shall categorize the person, shall place the person into a notification level and shall enter the information into the computer system. If the law enforcement agency is unable to obtain sufficient information to complete the sex offender community notification risk assessment, the agency shall categorize the offender as a level two offender. Within forty-five days, the local law enforcement agency shall notify the community of the person’s presence in the community pursuant to subsection C of this section.

I really don’t think AZ is going to be your saving state from the registry. I suggest you contact an attorney.

“Most state registries say that if you’re required to register in the state you were convicted in, then you must also register in the state you are moving to. Although, I remember hearing that this is not always true. You will need to read AZ registration law online.”

There is no substitute for reading the laws yourself, or for seeking legal assistance to understand them, if need be. One cannot afford to make assumptions.

Texas is one of those states where the registration law says nothing at all about whether you were required to register in another state. That doesn’t matter. You will be required to register in Texas if you were ever convicted anywhere (in any state of the US, any foreign country, or under the Uniform Code of Military Justice) of an offense containing elements that are substantially similar to the elements of an offense listed in the Texas statutes that is designated a “reportable conviction” for purposes of sex offender registration.

You might no longer be required to register where you currently live, or even, possibly, never were required to register at all. If you move to Texas, you will still be required to register if you meet the criteria in the Texas statutes.

The thing that every one of us should understand is that getting off the registry in our current state of residence doesn’t mean that we are free everywhere and always from a duty to register. We may still be subject to sex offender registration statutes when moving to or visiting another state. And, of course, since sex offender statues are civil regulatory laws, we could be off the registry for years, and then suddenly be put back on through a whim of the legislature.

That last paragraph makes me incredibly sad and angry. It will never really be over. It’s an unpayable debt.

Is there no redemption path for us then? There always needs to be a path to redemption. If there isn’t then what’s the point.

I’ve been thinking lately that there are 5 classes of ‘people’ in this country.

When someone is born they have limited rights, responsibilities, and protections until the age of 18. This is the first class but you move out of the class by turning 18.

After that you might go into the military. You have other rights and responsibilities, and limited freedoms. You have to go and do what you’re ordered to, etc. You can make this a career and stay in this class until you retire or you can do your 4 years or whatever it is and then get out where you then transition into this next class.

If your over 18 you’re an adult and basically a ‘regular’ person until you die. You are subject to the laws, responsibilities and freedoms that most people are. You can live your life within these guidelines. If you’re a citizen you can vote and do jury duty. Everyone pays taxes.

If you run afoul of the law you are incarcerated. As a prisoner, your rights and freedom are very limited. Once your time is served you can then go back to the ‘regular’ person class again.

And then there’s us. We did something and were moved into the prisoner class, but after our time was served we didn’t move back to the regular person class. We are another sub class of people. We can live in society, among regular people, but we have other responsibilities. We have to go to a police station at least once a year and get photographed, fingerprinted, and give them information about where we live and the vehicles we own. This information is then posted on the internet for everyone to see.

We have special marks added to our passports, we need special permission to visit our child’s school to participate in their education. In some states we are limited in where we can live. We are subject to home visits from law enforcement, etc, etc. And this is pretty much for life. There is no return to being a regular person.

This isn’t right. Is there a provision in the Constitution to allow for this? To allow for the creation of this special class of ‘not quite regular people’?

This is just something I’ve been thinking about lately. It’s making me angry and there isn’t a thing I can do about it.

Thanks for listening.

This short excerpt from the fantastic t.v. series “Fargo” may seem completely off-topic, but it really is, emotionally, totally on-topic and resonant for us. It just doesn’t get any more viscerally satisfying than this completely unexpected citizen/cop interaction even if it’s not something very many of us could ever pull off if only because very few of us have ice running through our veins. Think of it as a pop culture zen koan that vicariously rewards the humiliated and the besieged. “Fargo – Lorne Malvo: “Some roads you shouldn’t go down”

Two consecutive sentences of Life without Parole + one 25 year sentence + zero sex offense convictions = sex offender registration.

All about public safety, ain’t it?

@NY won’t let go:
IDK if you caught an aside I made to you in another post recently. I wonder if it may be a lead for you in finding legal help. See:

SMH… wasn’t accused of any of it but I wish the author of this article would report the correct information, like the stats of recidivism rates for RCs, I looked it up and they were way lower that what was published.

The part you mention in the article seems to be talking about rape specifically, not RC’s in general. Does anyone know what the current data shows on recidivism for rape specifically?

I can’t speak to any scientific studies, but the recidivism rate for this RC convicted of rape is 0%.

This came through my feed tonight and made for an interesting read. I don’t get our highest court at times.

@AJ – thoughts?

The Supreme Court Just Made It Easier for Police to Arrest You for Filming Them

I had only lightly followed that case. I guess we’ve discovered just how far the supposed pro-First-Amendment Roberts court will go, and that’s only as far the state’s unbridled police authority. Once again they rule that police can operate with near impunity and the courts will say it’s all fine. It disgusts me how much unchallengeable authority the courts keep giving law enforcement. Good thing we’re the land of the free, or they might be cause for concern. 😠🚽


Exactly and thank you for the input.

“The only silver lining in all this is that the court did create an exception to its harsh new rule. Even if police have probable cause to arrest, a plaintiff can still prevail by showing that the police “typically exercise their discretion” not to make arrests in similar circumstances. It’s unclear how this vague exception will be applied by the lower courts and whether it will have enough teeth to prevent cops from feeling free to operate with impunity. Gorsuch expressed optimism that the exception would be read broadly and “commonsensically” in future cases. Let’s hope he’s right.”

What is typical discretion in similar circumstances, e.g. Is there a percentage or demographic breakdown?, Research the numbers of calls made to 911 which are attended to that lead to no actions other than warnings, etc?

I am seeing too much ambiguity here and more vagueness to the already subj to interpretation vagueness we have with more power being taken away from instead of given to the citizen.

Even if “typically” is decided and defined, how will one be able to find and prove how many cases where they do and don’t? Given the events where nobody was arrested are not logged, there’s no way to add them to the “typically” pile. The only data available will be those arrest records where it’s cited. I stunned at Gorsuch’s naiveté.

I wonder if Alito’s erection has subsided yet. This Opinion is exactly his type of crap.


It does seem CJ JR threw Alito a bone there, doesn’t it?

Alito comment = LOL

Most of the time I just come and read the article’s and comment’s . But this time I seen something on the internet and was blown away , and I was thinking to myself abet everyone is talking about this . Grant you it is not a so bill but they passed it in Texas and its moving full steam ahead , it’s called (THE TAPS ACT) anyway have a good day hope everyone is ok