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


UPDATED: 50-State Chart on Relief from Sex Offender Registration 11-21-2019

[ – 11/21/19]

We [Collateral Consequences Resource Center] have completed an overhaul of our 50-State chart on relief from sex offender registration obligations, to bring it up to date and ensure that it is thorough and accurate.  This chart documents the duration of sex offender registration requirements, as well as legal mechanisms for early termination from such requirements.

In conducting this review, we have identified a handful of states that have, since the chart was last revised in November 2017, expanded the availability of relief from sex offender registration requirements, including for people who have successfully completed diversionary dispositions, people with serious disabilities, and people who are registered based on out-of-state offenses.  These recent changes in the law, incorporated in the chart, are summarized below.

Read more


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.
    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
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.  
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Janice, is this an error in this chart? in column two of California it reads: “Effective January 1, 2021, people in Tiers 2 and 3 of the new sex offender structure may seek relief from the superior court where they are registered, after a minimum period of registration. See column 1” I think they mean tier 1 and 2.

But even so, we are confident that you and all the ACSOL staff will continue to work to modify this tiered registry. Lifetime for a non-contact offense is a very dismal prospect to live one’s life out under this scrutiny.

You’re probably correct, but technically some T3’s can seek to get off the list as long as the reason they’re T3 due to a high Static-99 score and not the underlying conviction.

Having the Static-99R in the tiered law is just like having the current registry in place, in the sense that it lumps all offenders together, but worse for whom are harmed by the Static, because people are lumped together through an ostensibly scientific actuarial. But equally bad: Instead of people being required to register for life because of the underlying crime they committed, people are now subject to lifetime registration, under the tiered law, for having been assigned a simple number. Let that sink in: a simple number will determine whether someone is subject to lifetime registration. A number that does not take severity of the underlying crime into account. A number that actually *penalizes non-violent crimes* vs. violent crimes. A number that has the de facto effect of scoring gays higher.

Groundhog Day! Let’s see.

“Let that sink in: a simple number will determine whether someone is subject to lifetime registration.” Rubbish. The number reflects the probability that a, any sex crime convict will re-offend with a, any crime under the sex crimes definition within 10 years or even less. It does not mention registration tiers / periods or registration, period. That is your (elected) legislature doing so. Contact your representative.

” A number that does not take severity of the underlying crime into account.” The severity of the underlying crime is taken into account by the sentencing judge. The Static-99 quantifies the probability that a (male) person convicted of a certain type of crime will re-offend with a certain type of crime, within a specified and fairly brief time period. No further differentiation is claimed or offered.

“A number that actually *penalizes non-violent crimes* vs. violent crimes.” Again, the Static-99 punishes no one. It reflects the fact that those convicted of certain crimes (often the “lesser” ones) are likely to re-offend at greater rates when compared to the overall population. Be that because a person convicted of a truly heinous crime will spend their life in prison or has learned their lesson, who knows.

“A number that has the de facto effect of scoring gays higher.” That, of course, is nonsense. Show me where the Static-99 references “gays” or “homosexuals” or “sexual orientation”. It does no such thing.

Don’t get me wrong. I am certainly not a fan of the Static-99. But it is merely a statistical exercise that is being (purposely) misused by the California Legislature. It is with them that your disagreement lies. The Static-99 does not address registration and specifically states that its findings are limited to a brief time period as opposed to life time, as used in current law. Your repeated misrepresentations are not helpful.

Different name, same drivel. In other words – YUCK!

Static-99 doesn’t specifically mention gay men, but it automatically gives you a +1 point if your victim was male. The rational behind this is if STRAIGHT men have male victims, they are more likely to re-offend as they are less discerning about whom they target. As a result, gay men get penalized disproportional here since in general their preferred victim is more likely to be male just like a straight man’s victim is more likely to be female. Statistically speaking, as a demographic, gay men are actually less likely to commit a sex offense than straight men.

Wait… is this the same Scam 99R that is only valid for two years after release into the community?

Don’t know where people get “10 years from.”

1. Do you not see the flaw in gathering thousands of subjects, lumping them into a statistical model, and deriving a generic result that makes a vague forecast that someone might reoffend (but does not specify what, and the degree of severity to crime, they might commit)?

2. Yes severity of crime is determined by the sentencing judge. But a judge has no role in determining whether a crime qualifies for the Static 99R Scam “test.” As of now, all crimes are treated equal under the lens of the Static 99R, regardless of severity.

3. The fact that you contest the one point given to ‘non-contact’ offenders as not punishing “no one” is evidence to your indifference to the Scam 99R before our eyes. The clear fact is that that one point difference, under the Static 99R, can mean the difference between whether one is required to register for life (Tier 3), or for lesser terms (Tier 2 or Tier 1). Even worse, if you had two different persons, with all other “risk factors” equal, and one was convicted of murder/rape, whereas the other was convicted of indecent exposure, the person who was convicted of indecent exposure would actually score HIGHER! This is how ridiculous the Scam 99R is!

4. To argue that the Scam 99R does not penalize gays is ludicrous. It has the de facto result of penalizing gays, more than straights, given that gays tend to have male victims. Guess what else gets a one point penalization? Those with male victims!

There are lots of other flaws to the Static 99R scam that I’ve seen here. Among them is that the Scam 99R is only valid for two years following release into the community. As one remains offense-free in the community longer, the less relevant and inaccurate the Scam 99R becomes. Furthermore, has anyone actually noted what great lengths Karl Hanson has gone to keep his Scam 99R a “trade secret?” Makes you wonder what he’s hiding…

I thought the date was July 2021 did they change it to January, that it goes into affect?

The law goes into official effect on Jan 1st, 2021. This is when they’re officially going to be looking at everyone and sending out letters to let people know where they’re placed. Then, starting on July 1st, 2021, people will officially be able to start hitting the courts to get off. However, if you don’t have a Static-99 score, there will be an additional 2-year wait until they “figure it out”.

Dear SR:

“if you don’t have a Static-99 score, there will be an additional 2-year wait ”




That’s not possible…(by the way, how does one “get,” a Static 99,” score? I thought we kind of just calculated it ourselves…or the court could in you application?”

This is very, very bad news.

James I

I was convicted of misdemeanor 314 (13 years ago), never got a static-99 score. Didnt know I would potentially have to wait up to 2 years after it goes I to effect to petition. Is that true, or for certain crimes?

Janice or Chance,
I believe misdemeanors do not have a static scores as they are already low risk, compared to tiers with felonies, someone needs to do there homework. Janice could you give some clarification here?

You can also be “high risk” with only a misdemeanor (and no felony). One of the bazillion reasons why the Static 99R is dumb as hell.

@James I, The Static-99 is normally calculated in your pre-sentencing report. Those convicted before Static-99 was thing don’t currently have a score, hence why AB 384 (final tiered registry) has a two-year buffer to get off. They haven’t yet stated what they’re actually going to use that time for since the Static-99 is explicitly takes a snapshot of your life at the time of the offence, with some of the facts that it uses being more difficult to corroborate decades later, such as “how long was your longest live-in relationship at the time of the offence.

@Nick, As far as I’m aware, only 311.11 (child pornography possession) will be exempt from this delay as the Static-99 was specifically calibrated to be used for offenders who had a “live” victim. Since CP is images and not a “live” person in front of you, it’s not scoreable. PC 314 is public exposure and very likely would get a Static-99 score as someone was actually directly impacted by it.

@BA, the severity of the conviction (felony/misdemeanor) is irrelevant to the Static-99. Someone who physically beats, rapes, records, and then distributes the images can end up with a negative score (I think -3 is the lowest possible), while someone who has a non-contact crime be rated fairly high. Reason being is that the test uses several factors that have nothing to do with the crime. One score focuses on your age at the time. This score assigns a different value ranging from +1 (if you were younger than 35) down to -3 (if you were 65+ at the time). It also then looks at your relationships up to that point and gives you a 0 if you were ever in a 3+ years live-in relationship, or +1 if you weren’t.

I received a score of 4 because I was younger than 35 at the time (+1), it was a NON-contact crime (+1), non-relative (+1), and a stranger (+1). My crime was an upskirt picture of a minor. Had I been 65+ and my crime was a rape of a family member, my score would be -3. And in Nick’s case (above), being a crime of flashing, if he was under 21 at the time, he could potentially receive a score of 5+ (+1 being under 35, +1 likely due to literally not being old enough to be in a 3+ year live-in relationship, +1 for non-relative, +1 stranger, +1 non-contact, plus potential additional points for priors).

Not true I was charge was with encouraging child sex abuse two, for cp online when I was 23 when I was incarcerated someone fabricated sexual harassment charges that were dismissed and drop and expunged and they counted that I was classified 10 years later as a level 3

The Static 99(R) is the most stupid thing about the law

It’s still wrong concerning Indiana. Tier III and SVP can both petition to get off once they’ve been off probation/parole for 10 years, without a new felony. I told the organization about that at least a year ago, but for whatever reason they won’t update it.

@ Galphr…I can’t imagine the disparity here. In Indiana a SVP on tire 3 can be released after 10 years of a clean record, but in California a non-contact CP offense is stifled for life. California used to be the way shower of the nation, always ahead of the game and progressive. Now stuck in the Draconian era of fear mongering and endless punishment for a select minority group.

Anyone familiar with AZ? I’m looking into moving down there and am wondering if they’d be able to tell me what tier I’d be in before I decide if it’s worth it.

First, what state are you currently in? That may make a difference on how the receiving state will classify you. If you live in CA, don’t move, you’ll be better off here in the long run.

I have two questions, first one is when a person is relieved from the registry, do ex registrants (covered individuals) still have to do the notification process for international travel and worry about the feds sending out alerts to foreign countries even if they’re off the registry? Second question, how do we deal with the public that is opposed to an individual being relieved from the registry and make them understand something?

@ Lake County: Currently in OR but from CA originally. I was convicted in fed. court and was assigned tier 2 under federal SORNA, but while in CA I was listed by zip only. My case included possession though, so under CA’s new tier system as it stands now, I’d be tier 3 if I come back, so I am definitely not moving back (for the time being, anyway). Under the system here in OR, only those deemed predators are publicly listed so I’m at least not on the website here. But it’s a lifetime registry state, so at some point I’m going to head for greener pastures in search of relief; I will not be registering for life. I’m also not adapting well to the PNW climate; I realize how much I need sunnier, drier weather.

@TiredofThis, could you not apply to get reclassified at ten years, and then off at 15 years in Oregon?

Tired person,
Ex pat seems to be a path increasing in popularity. Me I’ll fight.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x