ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (5/15 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings
ACSOL’s Online EPIC Conference: Empowered People Inspiring Change Sept 17-18, 2021

General CommentsGeneral News

General Comments February 2020

Comments that are not specific to a certain post should go here, for the month of February 2020. 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 relevant comment.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I am planning a trip to TX for a nine day stay since 7 days is the requirement to register ; how do or do they even check to see how many days you are in the state of TX. I can plan for an overnight trip to LA in the middle of the nine days. So do they check the airlines looking at flight into and then out of a state how closely would the state of TX moderate this. Thanks if anyone has the experience … PS I have a COR from CA and will carry a copy with me

I seriously doubt they check domestic flight passenger manifests for RSOs. Far too time-consuming and fruitless. Your risk would be if, for example, you get in a car accident and wake up in the hospital a week later to find some officers there asking you why you didn’t register.
(If you do cross over to another state for one day and night, be certain to get a copy of the hotel receipt showing that you stayed somewhere else for a night – not in Texas.)

I would use a rental vehicle so they can’t have a digital license tag reader trail of you.. alot of traffic cameras now can scan license tags

Your license plates can be scanned in hundreds of thousands of locations now. People can buy their own personal systems if they want to. No traffic cameras needed, they can easily be anywhere and impossible to detect. So you should always assume that your license plate is being read and looked up in databases. Same with your face.

I also would never assume that rental companies are not immediately transferring data to law enforcement the second a car is rented. I have not heard of such activity or any law that requires it but I certainly would not put it past the criminal regimes. They could easily pass a law that requires rental car companies to send license/ID information of renters to them “just to compare for wanted people, ‘$EX offenders’, etc.” They would also send information about the car being rented. That kind of a law could pop up in some state and we might never even hear about it. Then a license plate reader could easily tie you to a rented vehicle.

I know for certain that some criminal legislators are trying to get new laws that require People Forced to Register to register any car that they rent. I mean, why wouldn’t the criminal legislators do that? Seems like one of the infamous “$EX offender” “loopholes” that is endangering children everywhere. Dumb f*cks.

It doesn’t matter. They can pass any “laws” they want. If I want to do something illegal with a vehicle, I’ll promise them that it will never be one that is Registered with any criminal regime. Cause that would be dumb. And unlike them, I live in reality and not Registry Fantasyland.

Message to Registry Supporters/Terrorists: Sic semper tyrannis. Here’s a famous quote for you – “You think you can be ruthless? Let’s see how you like it when the fighting is brought to you.”

Proceed with caution…

I’ve traveled to Texas a few times while registered, and every jurisdiction seemed to have a different way of dealing with this. In Dallas it was a royal PITA and involved hours waiting in line, in other places it took a few minutes going to a police station.

Do they monitor the passenger lists from the airlines? I doubt it, but it wouldn’t surprise me either. I’ve always been more concerned about the license plate scanners which seem to be everywhere nowadays. Of course, that would only show that your car was there, not necessarily that you were driving.

In reality I think the easiest way to get caught would be a random stop for an immigration checkpoint or possibly something minor like a blown tail light. Once they run your driver license and start asking questions, it won’t take them long to see how long you’ve been in the state.

Some states (like Illinois) calculate their requirement to register based on cumulative days in the state, not necessarily continuous days. So for states like this, leaving in the middle of the trip to LA wouldn’t help if the total days exceeds the limit. Not sure how Texas does it but it might be something to check.

So, are you likely to get caught? I’d guess no. But you have to decide how much risk you’re willing to take and how much worry you can tolerate. Me, I’d check in with them, but I have a low tolerance for worry about things like this.

@Worried, seems like waiting hours in line would be punishment.

Don’t disagree with you on that, but choosing between spending a minute in a Texas jail/prison while they “investigate” or a few hours waiting in some police station waiting room, I’ll take the waiting room. My bottom line on things like this has always been that if I get to walk out of the interaction on my own it was a positive interaction.

There have been a few times in the past that I’ve actually been able to make contact with the person responsible for registration while traveling and take care of things beforehand via fax. That’s obviously not always possible, but I was able to find the detective in charge and he didn’t seem keen on me wasting his time any more than I was in wasting mine.

If you know you’re going to need to check in or register, it’s always worth a phone call before going.

There was one time while I was on supervision that I traveled to NYC, and my agent required that I do a face-to-face with the local police even though I was not required to do so by NYC. The place looked like an episode of Barney Miller, and after the desk sergeant stop laughing about how stupid it was that I was required to do this, he wrote a line in his huge desk ‘police blotter’, drew a line under it to close the entry, signed my paperwork and handed it back to me. It was clear that they really didn’t care and just wanted me gone. I was afraid doing this in NYC would take forever, and it only took a few brief minutes. Sometimes you’re surprised.

It’s “whatever they can make stick.” Unless you are under active surveillance, nobody is going to notice you; until you say or do something to get someone’s attention. NEVER publicize your travel plans; not to Facebook, Twitter, or ANYBODY besides those trusted persons who are travelling with you. As for your COR, make sure your attorney has a copy on record, and carry his business cards on you. The last thing you need is to have your wallet stolen; and the thief has something to blackmail you with.

Dear Mot:

Why would you book 9 days in Texas when 7 are allowed? (unless it is a work requirement). This is on my mind a bit since I just booked a trip back east to a 5 day stay state for a wedding…and while people are angry with m for the brevity of my stay, (especially my brother), but F ’em, it is my life that will be ruined…but even more importantly, God forbids something happens and I am violated for not registering, it is my brother and his family that will suffer endless guilt for putting me in such a dangerous position.

I am gone in 4 and a half days!

People really don’t get it….since I don’t have a Static 99 score, my conviction and even my 1203.4 being very old, this adding two years really has me irritated so…I’m off to Hawaii (10 day limit, 30 days per year cumulative), and then to Italy. (yes, I know this seems a lot, but I can and do travel cheap…lol).

Re Italy, since I’ve announced I’m traveling again after several years off, (see Cris Smith/Obama signing the IML), people are shocked that I have to avoid landing in Canada or London on my way to Italy….people say, “Oh, I had not idea you that is so restrictive!”

In sympathy, but they still have no idea what we hoops we have to jump through like trained seals….just to have a normal life. Well, you all know the difficulties…Back to Mot, unless absolutely necessary…try for 7 days in Texas would be my advice.

Good Luck, James I

Are they automatically adding two years to determine your tier just because there was no static-99 score at the time?

Up to two years, yes. Reason being is because a Static-99 score of 6+ sends you directly to tier 3 regardless of your underlying conviction(s). So they want to make sure they don’t accidentally release these dangerous individuals who have remained crime free for 20+ years.

What if I have to travel for work into a 5day state and don’t have time to go and register between 7:30am and 6;30pm? Police registry is not available 24hrs by any stretch of the imagination. I have to go. I will be working long hours. I will be traveling within that state. Not releasing details of my business travel on here for obvious reasons.

Due to circumstances beyond my control, I registered this year on my last day (5 days before/after your birthday). It was a Sunday. I was told they only do registrants during working days and Sundays wasn’t one of them. As a result I was turned away. Before I left, I told them I was worried because the next day I’d be out of compliance and ripe for arresting. They reassured me that the conversation we were having was being taped and as long as I come in the next day. What gets me is….is the official word “5 days before and after your birthday”…or is it “five WORKING days before and after your birthday”. This is confusing me big time.

@Rob, it is very frustrating and sometimes some of the various reporting offices are not even available 5 days a week.

The actual requirement is on the page you initial every year … item number two … “within five (5) working days of” …

Hard not to be overly cautious, but many of the people I had experience with in the registering office can be very helpful and willing to assist you.

On the paper we all sign it says “working days.” Good luck.

To some states a ‘day’ means working days. To some states it means calendar days. In some states it means one thing for counting days in the state and a totally different thing for counting days to register. You’ve got to read the fine print.

In CA its 5 working days. Not sure about other states.

Anybody having isssues with maintaining work in California? It seems as though there’s a huge disconnect between using registration against us for employment on background checks. For some reason, background checks will still use doj sex offender checks against us for employment even if we’re passed the checks otherwise.

Yes finding and keeping work is harder. Don’t give up. Keep trying and you will get something.

I sort of been sticking to warehouse work has a equipment operator… drifting between different warehouse companies.. not the best way to make money, but everyone sort of sticks to their own business…

Thanks to ban-the-box I managed to get my dream job in CA. I passed a background check because they only go back ten years. But, it turns out they have a school as a client. So far I’m just waiting till they ask me to go to the site and then I’ll be forced to tell my supervisor and I’m guessing after he reports it to HR they will see me as a risk. I left a horrible job that I was underpaid and treated as worthless. They knew about my situation and took advantage. But, on the other hand I was employed almost 10 years. Now, I’m waiting to see if I lose it all.

TFM ~ I thought background checks in CA only go back 7 years? Do you have anything stating otherwise?

I was under the impression this company went back 10 years. Not entirely positive. Not sure what CA law is. Was just what I think I was told by the background folks. Either way, I wasn’t “discovered” which I thought was a blessing but now I’m waiting for the shoe to drop.

Interesting statistic: there are an estimated 70,000,000 detached homes in the United States. There are approximately 1,000,000 registered people. That equates to 69,000,000 homes occupied by non-registered people. If there are 50,000 new convictions for sex offenses each year and 95% of those convictions are committed by non-registered people, then that makes 47,500 individuals committing offenses. If each of these individuals live in a unique home that makes the chances of someone living near a potential sex offender a .065% chance of being attacked or injured by a neighbor. Using the same statistics for registered people there is a .0001% chance that you live near a potential sex offense. That means we as registrants should be terrified of the Un-registered potential offenders as they are a greater risk to us. I demand legislation to protect us from this over 600% greater risk to us than us to them. The unregistered have already stated we have the right to feel secure. I’m demanding the right to not be sexually attacked or injured. They should be forced from their homes so we can feel safe.

This of course is a parody in the interest of mocking these idiots…..

1,000,000 registered citizens as registered voters would have made the difference on who won the 2016 presidential election. If we organized and voted as a unified group the candidates would be extremely motivated to listen to what we have to say. Go ahead idiots, continue adding to our voting block. 1,000,000 individuals plus there families would account for 3% of an presidential election’s votes. Our numbers are growing. Please continue with your idiocy. Our army is growing.

Your comment in theory is sound, but reality doesn’t work that way.
Of all movies , “Ted 2” had a line that applies to our situation.
“ Decisions by society are based on emotion, not logic”. Therefore the law can not by applied, since laws are approved to appease the public. A paradox for sure.
Since #s mean nothing in voting ( I point you to the popular vs electoral vote of 2016) , there could be 3 million registrants and the legislatures would continue to create harsher conditions. In short, if you have more bugs, you simply use a stronger insecticide.

I didn’t check your math but the idea is certainly correct. And that is how people should use the $EX Offender Registries ($ORs). They should look at the $ORs maps and see all of the homes without RED dots on them. THOSE homes are where the people live who will commit over 95% of all new $EX offenses! Seems like a bigger problem than the RED dots. Further, I’ve got to think that the RED dots aren’t going to be committing any crimes near where they live. The $ORs teach, encourage, and remind them to go elsewhere.

Message to Registry Supporters/Terrorists: Sic semper tyrannis. Here’s a famous quote for you – “You think you can be ruthless? Let’s see how you like it when the fighting is brought to you.”

@Don’t tread on me, there are 5 states with a population under 1 million. While this may confine people where the feds wanted them, in one state, and is almost impossible to do but what if everyone on the registry moved to one of these states, took over the state government, ended the registry and refused to cooperate with anything related to SORNA?

@MC , sounds like good plan really because its better than beating our head against the wall wishing for gov’t /courts to strait out abolish the registry , taking our rights back rather than begging for those rights like some kind of subhuman the last 35 years , heck if only 200K with their families moved their we would be pretty much be controlling the vote and put in our own Government of that state I myself have 3 grown kids sister and her grown kids that would roll . heck yes lets sell this

@kind of living, it would be even more interesting if the sex offense rates in a state of 50% “sex offenders” is lower than the rest of the states as a % of population. Sex offenses themselves wouldn’t go away of course, just the registry so people committing such crimes would still be prosecuted.

@MC , it would be interesting to see the % drop not having a registry in that state , and of course if someone commits such a crime they do the time/punishment , but when they are free they have program’s helping them get work/housing . and some normalcy , a net work of people to help rather than shame , I think its a great idea, I like how you think man

The news story making its rounds now is regarding registered persons using dating apps.

Here are a couple of talking points to remember.

I have looked into this ProPublica/ Columbia Investigations/ Buzzfeed expose, and none of the three reporters listed have ANY previous criminal justice experience at all. In fact, two were recent Columbia grads and this was their ONLY published article.

Secondly, this report only found about 150 instances of someone ACCUSED or convicted of a sex offense initiated from an online date, and only 10% of those cases involved someone on the registry.

Finally, the article invokes a woman named Carole Markin. She wrote multiple books on online dating disasters and actually ran an organization that was some form of bad dates support group long before she claimed that she was raped by an SO on a dating app. She’s suspicious to say the least.

Fundamentally they want to ban all registrants from dating apps for the actions of 15 registered people? In the mean time there were 135 individuals that “raped” and they are doing nothing about preventing that? Wtf? Ridiculous fear monger it BS

A quick FYI for anyone headed to MN. I recently had cause to be there for someone needing attention at Mayo Clinic. I checked in with local PD (Rochester, MN) and was told as long as I didn’t exceed 14 days, I didn’t need to notify them in any manner (“we get a lot of these”). If you’re going to be in-state beyond 14 days, you have 5 days to let them know. I know this is what’s mentioned in the doc on here, but I thought it helpful to share what I was personally and firsthand told.

@AJ Thank you . Been thinking about going to MN to see if it might be a good alternative to living in Cali , I hate the idea of leaving my home state , but it just don’t feel like home anymore . Getting harder to make friends here these days , the registry makes every state harder I guess , wonder what the registry like in MN ? anyway the 2 week thing is cool if all you want to do is go camping and fishing , hope things went ok for your friend at the clinic

@kind of living, if you’re talking about moving to MN this was previously discussed (sort-of). MN is kind of tricky. If you are convicted there (non-SORNA state), you are typically required to register for 10 years (though there are some exceptions for aggravated offenses and repeat offenders and if you are on probation longer than that you have to register thru end of probation). If however you were ever registered in another state, you will be required to register in MN for the same duration as the other state requires. That said, Minnesota uses tiers, and these are done through an evaluation of risk and there are specific criteria that they have to follow for this. This will be done if you come from out of state to register but generally speaking if you have not re-offended for a long time, you completed a treatment program and you don’t have multiple offenses you’d be likely to be placed at Tier 1 and you can fight an incorrect tier placement in court. If you are a Tier 1, you will not be on a publicly searchable system tier 1 is ONLY for law enforcement. Tier 2 is not usually on the publicly searchable system but is subject to community notification in certain instances such as where you might locate. Tier 3 is on the public system. You are also added to the public system anytime you are not compliant until you become compliant regardless of tier. So MN can possibly be better from a public notification standpoint but it won’t change the registration requirements you have now unless that state itself changes the requirements.

@MC thank you for running that down , while it would be no better for me to move there but sounds better for some lower tier folks , But maybe a nice place to go fishing on a fishing trip and not have to worry about doing the whole registry thing for a 2 week camping /fishing trip , nice of you for getting back to me Peace

Finally free after 7 years of federal supervised release. Hoping to be able to get more involved in the cause now that that burden is lifted.

Congratulations! I hope you’re able to enjoy more of life.

Thank you. To be honest, I didn’t have it too rough the last few years, and was pretty much left alone. Just had limits on travel and electronic devices. By the grace of god I was able to find good people to give me an opportunity to continue my engineering career right within the 2nd year of my supervision. Without that who knows where I’d be. I’m looking forward to this next chapter, and am grateful that things didn’t end up much much worse, as they could have.

Congratulations JuniorSD! What state are you in? Any suggestions on how you went about it? I’m Federal with lifetime for a CP conviction. I’ve been out over 10 years. Tried to get off last year but got shut down because I had an iPad that was given to me at Xmas. Didn’t have the heart to tell the gift giver I couldn’t have it so put it under my coffee table and forgot about it…it was found in a sweep. I got told in court I would have to have 5 years “clean” to try again.

I’ve started wondering how is Megan’s Law not a violation of our right to privacy as guaranteed in the California Constitution and on the US Constitution as imposed (originally) from Griswold v. CT?

Because apparently the right to know trumps the right to privacy. And because this is a “civil regulation”, which at the moment seems like a near blank check to do whatever the hell they want.

What CA case law supports this?

In CA, the right to privacy is stronger than Federal’s right to privacy b/c CA stated it’s an inalienable right in its constitution.

I just started reading a PDF about privacy laws. Here’s the link:

I’m looking into this because one of the 1203.4 immunities is: “the court shall thereupon dismiss the accusations or information against the defendant”.

The keyword here is “shall”. There is nothing within 1203.4 that prevents de-registration. So this 1203.4 immunity is all about privacy and the non-dissemination of information against the defendant, which is a protected inalienable right to pursue and obtain privacy. 1203.4 is a legitimate process of pursuing and obtaining privacy which must be earned.

In Kelly v Municipal, they stated that PC 290 cannot supersede 1203.4 because they both exclude certain crimes. Kelly used to get one off the registry b/c in-person reporting was deemed punishment (quasi-criminal and limits the right to travel). Then the registry was deemed statutory via 2003 Doe v Smith. And through legal gymnastics, in-person reporting was now deemed not punishment in California. (But in Michigan, in-person reporting is punishment. Also, Smith v Doe never did address in-person reporting was not punishment, but it was never addressed.)

Note, the 1203.4 immunity has three separate immunities:
i) the court shall set aside the verdict of guilty;
ii) the court shall thereupon dismiss the accusations or information against the defendant
iii) and he or she shall thereafter be released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense of which he or she has been convicted, except as provided in Section 13555 of the Vehicle Code.

While in-person reporting was categorized as a disability/penalty, the privacy issue is identified in a different sentence. When the state changed PC 290 to disseminate the information to include more items, then it bypassed “the inalienable right… to pursue and obtain privacy” as duly noted in California’s constitution.

Although public safety is an issue, the State court decided that public safety wasn’t an issue when awarding anyone with the punishment of probation, knowing full well that a person can earn 1203.4 benefits if he or she successfully completes probation.

…. hmmm… odd. But if the California Constitution identifies privacy as an inalienable right and that we can lose that right if imprisoned/put under custody, then doesn’t that mean the loss of privacy is punishment? Seeing that 1203.4 has a separate sentence to identify the regaining of one’s privacy, it kinda points to the loss of privacy as punishment. … but I digress.

Although CA deems the registry as a statutory scheme, privacy isn’t considered punishment and 1203.4 removes the accusation/information against you are congruent ideas that address non-punishment items. 1203.4 and 290 cannot both be true because if your information is dismissed, then how can you be on the registry? That’s when 290 made another law to negate the effects of 1203.4 via PC 290.007.

What is lost in this is that the process of relief is asymmetrical. Only those convicts who do not qualify for 1203.4 need to apply for the Certificate of Rehabilitation (CoR), a 10-year wait for some. Yet, for registrants, they must first qualify for 1203.4 before applying for the CoR. Why is there an extra burden put upon registrants for relief? Why the double proof of rehabilitation via the 1203.4 and then the CoR is required? There exists an obvious inequity and the evidence is on the CoR forms. It’s unfortunate that Ms Belluci was not around when the new implementations of 290 was being constructed to refute.

1203.4 is for all convicts. Yet 290 bullied its way to negate essentially all benefits of 1203.4. Although your case is dismissed, your information via the registry states you are a current danger (including internationally via the IML), you have restrictions to abide by, you have to do in-person registration at least once a year, and are subjected to compliance checks – the latter three items reminds me of being on probation. Asymmetrical enforcement of 1203.4.

I just hope that when I do finish reading that Privacy PDF, that I find that the loss of privacy is punishment under California law or that privacy rights must be restored when 1203.4 is earned.

Thanks to Constitutional Challenge as this has perked my interest now.

Regardless of any laws passed, the state constitution is superior to it, so nothing can over rule it until it is changed. As such every one is guaranteed a right to privacy and it is exploited stated in the constitution. This means Megan’s law is in violation of that right.

It can even be argued our privacy is being taken from us with our records being public for any criminal, civil, etc. action….

@TP, I think the counterargument to that is that you gave up your right to privacy by committing a crime. And the right to privacy isn’t really explicitly a constitutional right to begin with. So while it is recognized that there is some right to privacy inferred by the constitution, there are serious limitations to this right.

The right to privacy is explicitly stated in the CA constitution and guaranteed to all citizens of CA. It no where states you lose your rights as the result of committing a crime, and if it did it would have to be specific to a sex crime otherwise it would apply to all criminals losing their right to privacy. Just because a loss of rights is “what is done,” it doesnt mean that is what we are constitutionally guaranteed. As such, if there is existing case law that states individuals lose their right to privacy as guaranteed in the CA constitution as the result of a criminal offense I’d love to know about it.

Federally the right to privacy is inferred and “established” by the Griswold decision.


If losing your privacy is part of the crime, which privacy is a guaranteed right under California law, then it is punishment to lose your privacy; not statutory. Or at least, that’s something worth looking into b/c California has stronger privacy laws than the federal government.

Before the new installment of laws under PC 290.5, only Law enforcement had that information and no one else. Now, that information is being broadcasted visibly to all. In fact, no one has addressed the issue on privacy b/c 1203.4 used to allow off the registry b/c in-person reporting was considered punishment via Kelly v Municipal. But things have changed. Now, so many institutions can access your information despite 1203.4 specifically stating the courts “shall” dismiss your information/accusation. The word “shall” means direct implementation. Thus, 1203.4’s guaranteed immunity to regain privacy is supported by the California Constitution.

Again, I haven’t read up too much on privacy laws, but I do know California’s privacy law is explicitly denoted in its constitution whereas it isn’t denoted in the US Constitution. I stumbled upon the privacy PDF recently, and only got through a few pages until my eyes tired out. I haven’t had enough time or had the motivation to continue reading at the moment.

California Constitution, article 1, section 1: “All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.”

Here’s the link to that law:

Another way the registry could help others when the fine print says you can’t use it beyond what it’s intended for. No, the article didn’t say registry, but since the info is public…

Controversial facial recognition company claims it has a First Amendment right to your public photos

Anyone able to get tsa precheck approved while serving on probation and on the registry?

On the tsa website, it says you are disqualified if its rape or aggravated asault. Nothing about minor crimes…

Yes I was released on 2003 and have flown around the USA and to Hawaii and have gotten on some flights the TSA Precheck and not on some flights. I did not apply for the $80 precheck but got it on a hi and miss since then

This is pretty interesting. If this is concretely ruled against them, that could mean that all those 3rd party websites that scrub Meagan’s Law website (as well as those that scrub mug shots) would be forced to scrap those portions of their “service”.


I agree. Always looking for an in to a legal case to help the cause here, I have to wonder. CA, et al, should be after these entities despite being public info IMO with cease and desist but why would they help?

@AJ, et al – thoughts on article?

My thoughts are that it *may* be public information, but not necessarily so. Many States say booking photos are non-public, but IDK that any protect ML pictures (nor would I expect ANY do). Regarding social media sources they scrape, I wonder if they’re guilty of copyright infringement. Last I recall, the TOS of social media includes a statement that all information one posts, including photos, become the site’s property in perpetuity. If so, this company is potentially facing suits from all of Big Tech.

I have to admit I find it more than slightly ironic that FB and G00gle are complaining about their stuff being used beyond what they know or intend.


Isn’t doxxing not permitted on FB and google? Isn’t doxxing against their TOS?

Also, are newspapers allowed to share mug photos or post where SO live? I used to see them on newspapers. This means rather than you yourself going to the archive, the archive is being broadcast everywhere. This is akin to putting registrants on a public square with the media shaming us all. Isn’t this thought the Justices thought preposterous to ever come to fruition in Smith v Doe?

@New Person:
“Isn’t doxxing not permitted on FB and google? Isn’t doxxing against their TOS?”
I have no idea, but it wouldn’t surprise me if so.

“Also, are newspapers allowed to share mug photos or post where SO live? I used to see them on newspapers. This means rather than you yourself going to the archive, the archive is being broadcast everywhere. This is akin to putting registrants on a public square with the media shaming us all.”
The press (in all its forms) has very wide latitude under the First Amendment. Also, in most locales, a mug shot is a public record. This means anyone–not just the press–can pretty much do with it as s/he wishes.

“Isn’t this thought the Justices thought preposterous to ever come to fruition in Smith v Doe?”
In my opinion, SCOTUS was woefully ignorant, craftily sidetracked by Roberts and Olson, and already slightly biased against RCs. IIRC, in oral argument, RBG never got her questions answered in comparing it to a stockbroker, etc.

Start voting and let people know you for this candidate… Than pop the top and say i am a sex offender!!! And this candidate is great so vote for him! Watch how those fools start changing laws when you asking for votes for them. Make me a monster you can join me!!!

Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

Based on this news story I saw, A SVP in SD who have been completely compliant since 2014 (as reported) was arrested for a FTR because those who managed him, a for profit healthcare company, failed to take him to his registration appointment. The DA never filed the charges for FTR because it was not his fault.

This raises a few questions and kind of sets an example for the future… most of all this establishes a precedent that if a registrant cannot get himself to his appointment and is reliant on other means of transportation for physical reporting because he is unable to get there on his own, charges shouldn’t be filed. Such as, if you cant drive anymore and there are no public transportation or other methods to the office from your place of residence, you cant get an FTR for not being able to report for that reason?!

More so, why is this even a flippin news story!

I actually don’t mind the story. It shows how dumb the system is. The city likely wasted thousands of dollars on this 3-day arrest to accomplish nothing.


There is a scam working where a person calls you and states that they are from the and you were sent a certified letter, which was signed by someone at your home. The letter was a demand that you come into the agency to give new fingerprints, photo, etc and that you did not show up. They say that a warrant is being issued, etc. THIS IS A SCAM!

When you call their number it is answered as “Sex Offender Registion”. They never got to asking for money to delay the warrant action, but that is where they are going.

They scared the life out of me and my wife. Don’t fall for it..

@Tom: H i ya. Thanks for the info, but I gotta ask, where have you been the last decade? Sorry.

I have tough on this topic before, with no response. I would like to see a organization like here would develop a simple two-side small one page tract, with facts about former Sex Offenders that we can print and put in laundry mats, post on community bulletin boards or any other opportune places so the public can be informed. Yes, there will be many throw out and torn down, however, people will read and talk about them.


There are already 2 national organizations that have that paperwork to which you are seeking for posting: NARSOL and SOSEN

Hello. I cannot seem to find the answer I’m looking for.
I was convicted of 311.11a in March of 2010. My wife and I really want to move to Nevada (las Vegas area). I know I like have to follow their laws, but what happens if California successfully drops CP down to tier 1 and I am allowed to get out of registration? If I stay until I’m off registration will I need to register in Nevada? If I move before stopping registration, would I still have to register once my time is up in California?

Thanks guys!

I am not an expert on either states rules but the general rule of thumb is that the registry is typically offense based. While a crime in one state may only have a limited tier 1 registration period, the same crime in another state would generate a tier 2 registration. Each state has a list of offenses for each tier. The wonderful part is some states have assumed a one size fits all registry. ANY offense is lifetime registration. There is no getting off. Florida comes to mind. If you visit there for more than 48 hours and have a sex offense in your background you must register. They never will take you off of their registry even after you leave their fucked up state.

I am about to take a college class at a local high school. It is the only one offered and it is required for the degree I am trying to obtain. I would really love to avoid it, but I can’t. Can anyone help me as to who I need to approach about this. Do I go to the college campus police? Do I bypass them and go to the high school? Do both? I would like as few people to know while staying within the law, of course. I am not on parole or probation. Thanks in advance for any help.

Your state law should specify exactly who you need permission from to handle this. Most likely it is the superintendent or principle. Follow this to the letter.

“College class at a local high school” That class is a extension of the college, therefore, you are not subject to the high school rules, only the college.


Is he? If there’s a restriction from the high school campus regardless if minors are on campus or not, then that would still be applicable, would it not? If the college class is held over a weekend or at nights when minors could potentially still be on campus, does the law not apply? Is something written in the law that gives an exclusion or an exception?

I would imagine any legal professional would tell him to avoid the high school campus regardless so any potential issue was avoided. However a legal professional opinion ought to be sought, and if in the state of California, the attorneys through this forum would be probably a good source to ask.

@TS, however, when taking college classes the student is dealing with the college only and not with the off site location. My wife was enrolled in a class that was relocated in the middle of the class year. All she had to do is go to this different site.


So the registry is negating your right to a college education? Sounds like a wonderful suit to be had.

With that said, “The Unforgiven” student is dealing with the college and the college is paying for that site’s building to use. As long as the student registers with the college, then the college knows where that student can be. Just view it as a shared campus and you belong to the college campus portion.

There are some high school site campuses on colleges. Does that mean you’re not allowed on your own campus? There are also some students who are minors that attend college because they’re ahead of your program or want to get ahead in their program. Are you not allowed on college then too?

I’m with Harry on this, but the student should simply ask the college PD about the circumstances. If the courses are only available at that college remote site, then they really can’t tell you no as it becomes a constitutional violation, which I wouldn’t mind seeing ACSOL going up to bat on this.

@Harry The college campus chief inferred what you said, the class is an extension of the college and to him, I did my part in notifying them (the college).

@The Unforgiven: Can you take that class online?

This class can not be taken online. I only need four more classes to complete an AA-T to a Cal State (in the fall) and, unfortunately, this is one of them. I naturally wanted to avoid this potential mess, but there is no other alternative.

Meanwhile: “Fourteen people, including a local university dean, have been arrested in Operation Broken Arrow, a sting operation targeting online child predators and child traffickers.”

Not one mention of the sex offender registry. I thought this list was helping; certainly not to catch anyone.

@the unforgiven

Excellent point which should be presented to legislatures, et al, who truly believe in such registries.

An update regarding the college class on the high school campus. I have attended. The high school is a closed campus with fencing all around it. The college classes are in modules that are behind the school. To access them, one must go along a long driveway that is beside the school to find the modules in the back. There is no access to the high school from there. The college campus police chief informed me that he saw no problem with me attending. He was to review any restrictions and get back to me. That was over the President’s Day holiday weekend. He never did. I received a call from the college campus police today. They said that they notified the city police of the high school and are now awaiting “permission.” I commented that, that wording sounded like it was possible to be denied an education. The woman backtracked a little, making it sound more like it was just a paperwork, legality thing. I am to receive another call today or Monday.

A quick note. The only other consistent thing in my years of registering besides doing it is that I have been given inconsistent information from all the people who claim that they know the law. Even when I register with the college twice a year, they tell me they need this and that, and it’s always different.

Did anyone visit Puerto Rico recently? Did you register there? How exactly was that done or if you didn’t register did you have any problems while you were there or when you left? I think the law is very unclear about whether short vacation visitors are required to register. The chart under the Legal tab above says you don’t.

@IL contact

Did you call any lawyers in PR to get their feedback as recommended here to confirm the three days others have said in this forum based on their information?

I travel to work as a contractor, can anyone tell my that if I register in South Carolina and stay for 4-6 weeks, will they remove me once I leave?

No need to reply, I found the information on the site already.
I won’t be going to South Carolina to work.

Another Probation/Parole like restriction in Utah for registered sex offenders, also codified under Probation and Parole.

Dear Representative Potter,

In response to the proposed house bill, you have failed to recognize a few facts:

1. 95+% of those who have committed a sex crime will never reactivate.
2. A “sex offender” is not one who has committed a sex crime in the past but is a present tense of someone committing a crime today and those people are ones close in relationship to the victim… parents, siblings, friends, coaches, teachers, clergy, law enforcement, and even politicians.
3. “This bill provides additional restrictions on individuals who must register as a sex offender.” Ever hear of ex post facto laws?
4. Grouping all sex crimes into crimes against children is heinous.
5. 30% of sex crimes are COMMITTED by minors and this bill punishes minors against crimes they commit as minors.

Your political “vote for me antics on emotion based lies” will NOT get you re-elected.

Bearer of the truth

His email

I am writing in opposition to H.B. 344, which would add to restrictions against registered sex offenders within the State of Utah. Most notably, is that the newly proposed restrictions have the same intent and effect of a condition of Probation and Parole often imposed on convicted sex offenders throughout the duration of their criminal sentence. Most notably, the bill is also codified under the Probation and Parole section of the Utah Code.

Since 2006 Utah has greatly departed with the tenants set forth in Smith v. Doe, that the registry is not an expost fact punishment, where “offenders subject to the Alaska statute are free to move where they wish and to live and work as other citizens, with no supervision.” Utah has done so by amending the registry to be ever more like a term of probation or parole, albeit slowly over time, which for many is a lifetime form of supervision. The key to constitutionality of the registry is that it not be punitive in intent or in effect. The punitive effect can render the law unconstitutional regardless of legislative intent.

Such has been the result of Michigan’s Sex Offender Registry. Please see the three attached decisions: Doe v. Snyder, 101 F.Supp.3d 722 (2015); Doe v. Snyder, 834 F.3d 696 (6th Cir. 2016), reh. denied (2016), cert. denied 138 S. Ct. 55 (2017); and, Doe et al. v. Snyder et al., No. 16-cv-13137 (E.D. Mich. 2020). Notably, is that the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals (“CoA”) found that the law modeled probation and parole conditions, which are historically punitive. The most notable decision of Snyder (2016) is that the registry fails to have a rational relation to its non-punitive purpose of public safety, “the record before us provides scant support for the proposition that SORA in fact accomplishes its professed goals. The record below gives a thorough accounting of the significant doubt cast by recent empirical studies on the pronouncement in Smith that “[t]he risk of recidivism posed by sex offenders is ‘frightening and high.’” 538 U.S. at 103 (quoting McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24, 34 (2002)).” The CoA even cast doubt of the entire evidentiary basis of the United States Supreme Court’s (“SCOTUS”) decision supporting the finding or presumption of dangerousness among sex offenders, and found that the 2006 and 2011 amendments were an ex post facto law. The SCOTUS allowed this CoA decision to stand, and shows us a turning point in the jurisprudence of sex offender registration laws. The vast majority of empirical evidence does not support the state’s non-punitive purpose of public safety, and such opens the State up to future litigation.

As of February 14, 2020, the State of Michigan has 60-days to re-tool their law, in such a way to pass constitutional muster, or face a permanent injunction which will remove thousands of sex offenders from their registry.

I argue that the Utah Sex and Kidnap Offender Registry meets the definition of punishment as, “(1) it involves pain or other consequences typically considered unpleasant; (2) it follows from an offense against legal rules; (3) it applies to the actual (or supposed) offender; (4) it is intentionally administered by people other than the offender; and (5) it is imposed and administered by an authority constituted by a legal system against which the offense was committed. See H.L.A. Hart, Punishment and Responsibility 4–5 (1968),” quoting Snyder (2016).

I agrue that the Utah Sex and Kidnap Offender Registry we know today is punitive, “while SORA is not identical to any traditional punishments, it meets the general definition of punishment, has much in common with banishment and public shaming, and has a number of similarities to parole/probation” (Doe v. Snyder, 834 F.3d 696 (6th Cir. 2016), reh. denied (2016), cert. denied 138 S. Ct. 55 (2017). This latest restriction only adds to the evidence that Utah’s registry amounts to supervision, is now punitive, and constitutes an ex post facto law.

I implore this committee to reject H.B. 344.

Email list (LE Committee):

A substitute bill has been filed which limits the restriction to coaching, managing sports teams for < 17 years old.

I wrote the author of HB 334 also trying to explain that isolating registered persons cannot be the answer, especially since many are registered for really stupid, misunderstood reasons, pleas, or miscarriage of justice. We are all in this together. I hope things work out in UT.

Thank you to everyone who wrote in. They passed a substitute (watered down) version of the bill that only prohibits being a coach or manager of a sports team for anyone < 18.

I live in CA. Passed a background check for a new job (assuming because my charge is over 10 years old). My new employer has one client that’s a school. At some point I will get asked to trouble shoot a problem on a school campus. I know I will then have to tell my Supervisor I can’t be on a school campus (which is my only real restriction). But, I’m thinking ban-the-box law was there so we could have a fighting chance. When I have to tell my Supervisor I’m thinking less is more. Maybe I just say I was in some trouble over ten years ago and part of my problems included agreeing not to go on any campus. Do they have the right to then go look? I know it could happen of course…but would they legally have the right? If I don’t lie, but don’t completely disclose? Anyone have any experience or advice.

@Question To The Community

My suggestion would be to talk to someone in HR about it because the are bound by confidentiality laws, your Supervisor isn’t.

I’ve gotten federal security clearances after my felony conviction and full disclosure is the best policy.

Since it is rare to get a repair ticket for the school and at this point I think there is only one school district in my territory, I was hoping by telling my supervisor something generic he would accept that and maybe not assign the schools to me. Although I’m sure he would have questions and I would most likely have to explain anyway. If I tell HR, aren’t they then obligated to determine if I am a risk? If I tell my supervisor, is he obligated to tell HR? I love this job and everyday I get up I’m worried will be the day I get pigeonholed. Either way I’m hoping to get a few months to prove my worth and make their decision harder before I am faced with the scenario. I’d like to resolve it now, but think it’s better to work there a little bit first, hope nothing happens and then address it so it’s not hanging over my head. I figure I should have a game plan for when that happens though.

Would it possible to request that you not have to work at a school location? Either give no reason other then personal preference or say you have some sort of past trauma that makes being on school grounds very difficult for you.

Those explanations are true and also avoid disclosing your status of being forced to register.

I interviewed someone for a position today and the interview went quite well. At the end of the interview, this person volunteered that a couple of years ago he was caught up in a to catch a predator style sting operation and had gotten convicted of a felony over it and is on probation and required to register. Since I know first hand how this is, I’m trying to figure out a way to get him hired. The employer obviously isn’t really the problem, the problem is probation. His probation restrictions require that any access he has to the internet be monitored by probation. Since the software required to do the job is specifically web-based, there is no way to not have to use the internet, sometimes on a tablet browser and sometimes on a desktop PC. For business reasons, there is just no way that monitoring of the type that they want to do would be allowed. If they just recorded visited websites that would be one thing, but they require access to every file on the PC effectively monitoring the entire business operation which is not going to be able to be allowed. Anyone have any ideas or is this guy just not going to be able to do this line of work?

Probation for “catch a predator” style conviction? That’s a 5 year mandatory minimum prison sentence here in Wisconsin. How sweet California must be!

@Russ, I’m not in California. Funny thing is the conviction is in WI. I looked it up and it looks like he pled guilty to exposing child to harmful materials in exchange for them dropping the other charges. The other charges are dismissed on the record.

Oh, that makes sense. DA agrees to amend the charges. Some WI counties do that but in Milwaukee County, its the policy of this piece of shit DA’s office not to amend charges on mandatory minimum sex crimes no matter if your 50 years crime free. He gave me 3 years for looking at pictures but he gives young thugs prosecutorial deferments so they can continue to terrorize my city

Any chance you or your company could speak with probation? Asking if there is a way that he could work with your company and still meet the needs of probation?

In my experience the probation officers have a lot of latitude – and this person employed is a good thing.

Absolutely can talk with probation been going around in circles with them.

@M C: Does the company you are at have an IT department? If so, they should have records of any and all internet activity and be reviewing them periodically.

I was employed at a company that had internet connected computers and my supervision agent did not care. My employer’s IT department did monitor internet activity though (for everyone). Prior to that when I wasn’t allowed on the internet at all and looking for employment, I was allowed to go to the State’s employment office and use their computers. They also monitored internet activity (access wasn’t restricted but monitored actively. Some people around were called out on violations while I was there).

IDK if this helps or not.

We are not big enough to have an IT department, and the system isn’t really monitored as it stands. It sounds like they are only okay with it if they have their monitoring software. That however creates some issues because it would reveal customer lists (most are private parties) and such that we really don’t want any outsider to have. It’s just simply not their business and I worry they could use it for other law enforcement purposes without a warrant or subpoena. I mean, from what I’m being told it key-logs so the persons passwords would also be revealed. This may also violate my agreements with the third party vendor that owns the website he would be accessing.

I’m trying to get them to instead allow him to be un-monitored but with restricted access. Basically, he needs to be able to access three specific websites and one installed software product. They seem to not like this idea because its apparently easier to circumvent but if its set up in that way then I’m not worried that they could see anything we wouldn’t want them to see because they wouldn’t really be monitoring it.

Do you need some motivation? I do. Even though I am set for life financially, I have lately found my life basically empty, just doing what I need to do to stay alive; taking care of home, taking care of my dog, grocery shopping, paying bills, etc. Is there more to life than this?

So will this guy be banned from Halloween for punching a cop?

“The Truth Could Set Them Free” “Why did California destroy research into a group of people it says are dangerous enough to be locked up indefinitely?”

Steven Yoder wrote this terrific piece for Reason Magazine on “sex offender” civil commitment reoffense rates in California and how the State effectively buried the results.

Coalinga “hosprisoner” activist, Mike St. Martin, has been the tireless thorn in the side of the State of California and got this ball rolling. I put him in touch with the article’s author, Steven Yoder. My thanks to both of them.

There’s much more to come.

Darn. That article requires a paid subscription to Reason.

I just posted a comment on an article where the word “sex” held it up for moderation. Is it any wonder America has a “sex offender” witch hunt?

So what word should I use? I don’t like “$EX” because people tend to put too much emphasis and belief into thinking that money is a primary reason I oppose the Registries. I don’t think “S*X” is good because too many commenting systems treat * as a special character. Perhaps “S_X”?

So while surfing today I ran across and its right-wing bent. They resurfaced and claim not to charge for removal anymore. So where’s the profit now?

Judge spanks hard for charging for photo removal
Lawsuit claims one arrestee was told it would cost $15k to have profile removed.

There is also this court of appeal opinion outlining the California sex crime history and what led to the registry.

I might have missed this, but good to see a large collective of groups with the same goal, including ACSOL, file a brief to assist in taking down crazy laws:

This is interesting. Scroll down the “presentation” to the heading “Crimes against children and human trafficking”.

Interesting developments in Michigan. Some people are reporting over on Narsol that there have been similar incidents to what @Chris was describing in terms of Michigan registrants being refused compliance status at their quarterly verifications…the person who posted there also said that the $50 fee was not taken by the registering official. In addition, our pages on Michigan’s SOR no longer say “compliant” but now say “active” …not sure what these developments mean but something is happening…