ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: May 16 – Phone [recording], June 13 – Phone, July 11, August 15 details
Oct 10 and 11 – Conference (Los Angeles),

Emotional Support Group Meetings 2020 (Phone only)

2020 ACSOL Conference – Postponed to Oct 10-11

Action ItemsCalifornia

Action Alert: CA Legislation Would Significantly Increase Duration of Protective Orders [UPDATED 5/22]

[UPDATED 5/22 WITH LOCAL SENATOR OFFICE PHONE NUMBERS]

Please call and write today!

The California Senate Public Safety Committee has scheduled a hearing on May 27 during which Senate Bill 853 (SB 853) will be considered.  If the bill is passed, the duration of Protective Orders issued in cases involving sex offenses and other crimes would be significantly increased from a maximum of 10 years to life, depending upon the conviction for which a person is required to register.

This bill was introduced by Senator Hurtado, a Democrat whose district includes Fresno, in January 2020.  The principal coauthor of the bill is Senator Rubio, a Democrat whose district includes West Covina.  The bill also has three Senate coauthors and two Assembly coauthors.

“We must stop this bill,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci.  “If the bill is passed, individuals who have protective orders issued against them could be extended for life.”

In order to stop the bill, registrants, family members and supporters are asked to send a letter of opposition to the Senate Public Safety Committee using one of the following methods:

Mailing to:

Senate Public Safety Committee
State Capitol Room 2031
Sacramento, CA 95814

Hand delivery to the Committee’s Office Room 2031 of the State Capitol

Letters must be received by the Committee no later than May 26.

The Committee hearing can be viewed online or listened to by calling 877-336-4441 and using access code 6775069.  The Committee requests that callers mute their phones in order to avoid background noise.

Sample letter in PDF (updated 5/21/20 to remove the lifetime GPS monitoring comment):

SB 853 – Opposition – 20 May 2020_000419

Also, please call all the Senate Public Safety Committee members and state your opposition to Senate Bill 853 (the first number is the local office, which seems to get through easier than the second number of the state capitol):

Senator Nancy Skinner (Chair) (510) 286-1333, (916) 651-4009
Senator John M. W. Moorlach (Vice Chair) 714.662.6050, (916) 651-4037
Senator Steven Bradford (310) 412-6120, (916) 651-4035
Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson (805) 965-0862, (916) 651-4019
Senator Holly J. Mitchell (213) 745-6656, (916) 651-4030
Senator Mike Morrell 909.919.7731, (916) 651-4023
Senator Scott D. Wiener (415) 557-1300, (916) 651-4011

https://spsf.senate.ca.gov/ has links to the Senators’ websites.

The Committee hearing is available these ways:

  • View online: GO to www.senate.ca.gov no earlier than a few minutes before the session and click on the link you will see under Today’s Events
  • Listen to the teleconference to by calling 877-336-4441 and using access code 6775069.  The Committee requests that callers mute their phones in order to avoid background noise.
  • TV: If you are in Sacramento, watch it on Sacramento channels,

 

Join the discussion

  1. Jack7170

    Interesting. So while the bill allows judges to retain the discretion whether to issue a protective order or not, it seems to leave the issue of monitoring when placed on the order up to the counties. The problem with this bill is how frequently and without forethought judges issue protective orders. I wouldn’t complain frankly if it gave judges the discretion of monitoring when they’re placed on a protective order though.

    • Christopher Garcia

      So what if the the protection order expired 8 years ago im nt understanding this SB 853 .I served my time about to get off of parole and fyi they maybe cutting people early due to budget cuts

  2. Jack7170

    Here’s another little tidbit… the bill also says “The duration of electronic monitoring shall not exceed one year from the date the order is issued”…..

    • steve

      So the tiered registry strikes again. Is this retroactive? What a waste of money.

      • Paul

        This was predictable because whenever you divide a community it is easy to conquer them. The tiered registry is a disaster! To the few of you who have benefited from a tiered registry will you be there in Sacramento to stop this bill?

        Hello? hello?

        Anybody there?

        (Crickets)

      • Eddiev.

        No Its not Retroactive, and cant be unless specifically writing as Retroactive.

  3. jd

    Has anyone looked at the possible costs? The state just announced a huge budget shortfall. State employees are giving up 10% of their salaries. Is this really the best use of our limited resources?

    • Eric

      The cost could be the saving grace. An attempt at electronic monitoring was tried about 10 years ago in California, but as soon as the cost was made public it died immediately.

  4. MichaelS

    So, I’m a little confused, what is the bottom of line of this bill?
    If you are a registrant and have a protective order issued against you… Or if you’re required to register for life under the new tiered system…. are everybody who is required to register for life, as they now are in California…or just what is the implication?

    • SR

      Its a if you have it against you which is given to you during conviction. Its a restraining order with monitoring. And its not automatic. Its up to the judge. They’re not going to go through 100,000 cases retroactively. But this still needs to be stopped.

      • ab

        Keep in mind it’s proposed state legislation and only can be applied in county and state courts, not federal courts. If the offense is out of state or federal this particular proposal can’t interact with those unless a county or state court in California was part of the conviction process. Does not make it any less bad.

    • steve

      If they are making a protective order on someone 5/10/or 20 years later aren’t they determining you are dangerous without due process??

      • Roger H

        It would seem so. All the more reason for us to fight this thing with calls and letters today! And a donation to ACSOL would sure help us increase the number of things we can fight.

  5. J

    It got placed into a health care act when will this madness stop it’s so upsetting I just want to live free as the Constitution promises me but that don’t seem to matter anymore God I hope this don’t pass

    • Job

      This is what i was talking about a long time ago !
      Civil Commitment and Medical Laws and other Gov. Putting things here and there in the Law jeopardizing LIBERTIES AND RIGHTS !

  6. steve

    I just hope one of these idiots defends this bill by saying those who have been place in tier 3 lifetime are dangerous or the worst of the worst. Proves it’s punishment without due process.

  7. Jack7170

    How on earth does one sentence change invalidate the rest of the law? That’s the only way what Janice is saying about the GPS is true, and it doesn’t make any sense. Can somebody explain this to me?

  8. Steve G

    This also looks like it would ruin any attempts at family reunification. I am very fortunate in my situation because I was able to reunify after going through Group, Individual and Family therapy for over 4 years.
    This bill seems to pretend that families involving sexual abuse would never want to reunify.

  9. Klaz

    Can someone from Janice’s camp PLEASE answer MichaelS questions above (I have the same questions). The way her letter is written has scared the heck out of us. Please clarify. Is this going to be all Tier 3’s?

  10. Jack7170

    The letter you’re showing us here isn’t updated at all it’s exactly the same as the last one. The part about wearing GPS units for life needs to be taken out ASAP.

    • Janice Bellucci

      Because I rushed writing the initial letter of opposition, I made a mistake. That is, I did not read the sentence in the bill that limits the requirement to wear a GPS device to only one year. I thank those who have informed me of my mistake which was subsequently corrected in both the article and the letter which are now linked above. Please accept my apology for any harm that I may have caused.

      • Eric

        No problem, thanks for fighting for us. You have had a busy year, and it is only May.

      • SR

        Thank you, Janice. We appreciate everything you do for us and our families! But can you check the sample letter again? It still reads as if the GPS monitoring is up to life.

  11. AERO1

    i feel sorry for anyone who is classified as tier-3 sex offender it looks as if the state is gearing up for their third wave of assault/ Witch Hunt on registrants that started back in 2006
    In my opinion GPS tracking on all California sexoffenders always was their main goal and now with the help of advanced technology the DOJ can track any and everyone in the name of Public Safety and Homeland Security but
    When you have a hundred thousand sexoffenders that’s a lot of GPS tracking devices but it’s starting to make sense why California SB384 was put in place to divide and concur

  12. Job

    This is what i was talking about a long time ago !
    Civil Commitment and Medical Laws and other Gov. Putting things here and there in the Law jeopardizing LIBERTIES AND RIGHTS AND FREEDOM !

  13. supporter

    call the Senate Public Safety Committee members!!
    it would only take less than a minute to call each one of them. they may ask, where you are calling from (city and zip code) and one asked, initial of your last name.

  14. Registered Citizen

    Thank you ACSOL. I’ll be calling today.

    This must be defeated!

  15. SR

    I made the calls today and sent the letter.

    I encourage everyone to do so whenever ACSOL asks. It really does make a difference.

    And I know for many (myself included), making these calls can raise anxiety levels a lot. Try to push past that as these calls are very simple and quick. They never ask you why you’re making this choice, so there’s no “debate”. Each call takes maybe 30 seconds.

    It’s basically this each time:

    Hello. My name is X. I’m calling in support/opposition of Y.

    They may ask you your full name.
    They will ask you for your city.
    They may ask you your zip code.

    That’s it. They don’t want the full address or any other info.

    Le’ts bury this thing!

  16. someone who cares

    Sorry, but can someone explain to me what a protective order is and who it would apply to?

  17. Roger H

    Making the calls was pretty fast, and so was writing the letter!

    Even though this bill doesn’t affect me, I want to help others in the same way that they would support me on my issues.

    If we only call and write and show up for our own issues, then divided we fall.

    But if we all pull together for all registrant issues, we will succeed!

    We are all in this together!

  18. Roger H

    I have found that the first number listed by each senator (the local number) allows messages more often than the capitol number, so I recommend trying those first.

  19. catch22

    State budgets and county budgets are all going to be in the Red when this lockdown is over . They can only get so much by taxing us more . The Feds are not coming to our rescue. Police budgets will require cut backs and one item I hope they cut is this Registration BS . There is probably nothing we can do about it but lets keep our ears open to any sound about 290 stuff

  20. James (monthly donor)

    Made my calls today. Had to leave a voicemail message on a couple. But couldn’t get through to the Chair on the numbers provided. Wrote my letter as well with some of my personal thoughts:

    First off, I am for the protection of alleged victims and potential witnesses from the risk of any injury, coercion, and/or harassment that can be committed by a defendant. I also believe that justice affords rights to the defendant as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the California Constitution. Senate Bill 853 (“Bill”) in its current and poorly drafted form I believe violates defendant’s constitutional rights to due process in that it would require the accused “who has been convicted for a felony sex offense that requires registration pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 290, the Sex Offender Registration Act,…for up to the duration of the period of registration as determined by the court,” i.e., for 20 years or a lifetime depending on the assigned tier level, which is based purely on the defendant’s prior conviction and not on a case-by-case basis as determined by the merits of the case. If I’m correct, the Bill contemplates pendency of criminal matter (“a court with jurisdiction over a criminal matter”). Therefore, to have a protective order lasting 20 years or a lifetime long after the criminal matter is resolved and the defendant is no longer in any custody, i.e., incarceration, parole, or probation, it would mean that defendant would still be in custody after s/he has served his/her time under this proposed law. There already are legal mechanisms in place for people to seek a protective order, e.g., a TRO, if they feel threatened by someone for any reason. To boot, the Bill would invite abuse for discretion by the courts. We all know the justice system works only if those charged with upholding it, e.g., state judges, prosecutors, etc., act with justice and fairness in accordance with the law. However, we also know that not all judges, prosecutors, etc. act in such a manner. This Bill is ripe for abuse.

    In addition, I fully agree with the contents of the enclosed letter by Attorney Janice M. Belluci, dated 5/20/2020, and is incorporated herein by reference.

  21. Marty

    Any bill that adds to or increases punitive action is a bad bill and a potential litmus test for additional future legislation. We cannot ever allow bills like this to pass. Even if you personally are not affected by this one (and thus don’t feel the need to speak up), the next one spawned by or based on this action very likely will have an impact on you. “Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak for me.”

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • 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.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • 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.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues 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.  
 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

.