ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (01/15 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

Recording of Emergency ACSOL meeting about new SORNA regulations



CA: ACSOL Lawsuit Filed Against SDPD for In-Person Sex Registration Amid Pandemic

[ – 3/25/20]

A lawsuit has been filed against the San Diego Police Department on behalf of more than 100 local sex offender registrants who are challenging requirements that they must register in person during the coronavirus pandemic, while state and local governments ask that residents stay home to prevent the virus’ spread.

The lawsuit was filed by the Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws, which also filed similar lawsuits this week in Riverside and Sacramento counties.

It asks for a judge to issue an order halting the practice of having registered sex offenders appear in person at San Diego Police Department headquarters, and instead adopt video conferencing or telephonic updates, as implemented by the Los Angeles Police Department and other state agencies during the pandemic.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys say the registrants represented in the suit “have high-risk COVID-19 factors such as age and/or chronic diseases (diabetes, asthma and hypertension).”

Read the full article


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

Whoa…Great work Janice!

Have any of the SD, Sacramento police response to any of those lawsuit. yet?

This is going to be interesting..

I wonder what chickenshit defense they’ll come up with?

Probably something along the lines of: “The threat that sex offenders pose to public safety do not go away. Even under a historic national crisis, they’ll continue to seek out our vulnerable children.” LOL

Of course it is strictly a matter of public safety. At all times, national crisis or not. Has been since 1947.

Until the mid-nineties annual registration was not required. One registered upon conviction / release or when moving to a new residence. That was it.

Starting in 1995 (or there-abouts) annual registration became law. I think first it was within 10 days of your birthday, now it is five.

Surely there must be some archive of historical state laws, and each successive change. If there is I cannot find it online. Can anyone with access to a law library find out?

Regardless, after re-reading PC 290 it makes no reference to in-person reporting. I would have bet the farm on it, but it doesn’t. But that makes total sense. In-person is a characteristic of parole / probation and therefore punishment. Can’t have that.

Therefore I would not be surprised that in ~1995 the requirement of annual fingerprinting was added (think about it…. what sense does that make – your prints don’t change, that is the only thing that makes them useful), and annual photograph (though the web site did not go online until 2004?, so that was not a reason).

So yes, it was the legislature’s explicit intent to bring in the registrant once a year (for photo / print) or other reason that I cannot find in 290. Ask any of the old-timers here. You did not have to go in annually before 1994 or 95 or 96.

All this, of course, in the name of public safety – because the government has a compelling interest to protect the public from sex offenders.

And that interest absolutely does not diminish with anything.

Is there any ability or willingness to expand this beyond reporting? I’m still on supervision and had to go to a polygraph today, plus still have to do group therapy, etc. All of these are in violation of the Governor’s and city orders.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x