Senate Committee Rejects CA Senate Bill 853

[ACSOL]

The Senate Public Safety Committee today stopped Senate Bill 853, which if passed, would have significantly increased the duration of criminal protective orders up to an individual’s lifetime. The Senators voted after hearing from more than 40 people opposed to the bill, including representatives of the ACLU, California Public Defenders and the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice.  By comparison, only 8 people spoke in favor of the bill.

“ACSOL and its members are to be commended for stopping a bill that would have violated the rights of registrants and prevented them for successfully reintegrating society, in general, and their families, in particular,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci.

During the hearing, Senator Nancy Skinner, who chairs the committee, stated that it was important for the Committee to “balance the rights of everyone,” including victims and registrants.  She stated doing so was a challenge similar to “threading a needle.”  Senator Skinner provided the author of the bill, Senator Melissa Hurtado, an opportunity to amend the bill so that it would apply only to registrants assigned to Tier 3 under the Tiered Registry Law.  Senator Hurtado stated she would not accept the amendment because it would not protect enough victims.

Also during the hearing, Senator Scott Wiener stated that he would be able to support SB 853 if it were limited to to individuals assigned to Tier 3.  However, he added that the bill in its current form was “a step too far.”  Senator John Moorlach noted the large number of people who spoke in opposition to the bill and wondered whether the bill would pass constitutional muster.  Senator Moorlach stated he regretted that, as an Orange County Supervisor, he supported presence restrictions adopted in that county which prohibited registrants from visiting public places such as parks, beaches and libraries.  Those restrictions were later ruled as unconstitutional by state and federal courts.

Those speaking in favor of SB 853 included Tim Ward, Tulare County District Attorney, who stated that the bill was necessary in order to provide “basic peace of mind” to the victims of sexual abuse.  Others speaking in support of the bill included representatives from the California Police Chiefs Association, the Alameda County District Attorney, and State Sheriffs Association.

Prior to the vote, Senator Hurtado stated that if the bill was stopped by the Senate Public Safety Committee, she would introduce a new bill during the next legislative session.

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

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 and a**
  4. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Use person-first language.
  5. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  6. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  7. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  8. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  9. 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 that are not personally identifiable.
  10. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  11. Please do not post in all Caps.
  12. 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. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  13. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  14. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  15. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  16. Please do not solicit funds
  17. No discussions about weapons
  18. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  19. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  20. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  21. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  22. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
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.  
 

73 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I am moving today. I decided the place I live right now is too detrimental to my mental and physical well being. As I mentioned before, my neighbor tenant was vocal about my status. It was a high crime area, but it was all I could afford in the Bay area. Amazing that 5 yrs ago I had a house, a great job, and friends. No

How can someone hold there head up high if there a sexofender no matter how much you lie to yourself or try and live a normal life you’ll never be accepted in Society its pointless to even try welcome to hell on earth

This is just another reason why the entire tier approach never should have been supported! That was never designed to lead to the end of registration, it was the opposite. And now you see them using it to load on more crap, and when too many complaints because of lower level offenses, instead of it being nixed, they say well then, Teir 3 — and so it can live on, and later expanded to tier 2 maybe.

But yes, you are individually assessed for a tier. They have a neat computer program, and computers can’t be wrong, right? Nobody even knows all the things actually in that computer program for assessing you. But even the factors they have mentioned, such as whether you are marreied, are BS — you could be required to register simply because you are not married — and what if you were married to another registrant. And you can’t challenge them, its a computer, computers can’t be wrong, computers are experts. And we didn’t fight this. A judge isn’t going to favor your say over the computer’s say.

Meanwhile, all those in Teir 1 should not be registering ever — OR, as a compromise, make it as it was before Clinton went animal on registration, make it so you register only while on probation, and when you get 1203.4 relief at end of probation, done, you no longer have to register. There is no further review needed for relief, by law probation IS the review and 1203.4 is the confirmation of that 1203.4 used to sometimes be called statutory rehabilitation, you were considered to have proved rehabilitation while on probation (same for parole). They used to do it like that, registration was never really lifetime for lesser offenses — until the mid-1990s. Even higher offenses could see a COR in five years and that allowed them to stop registering, they did not need a full pardon.

Why are we not pushing this approach NOW. The tiers are BS, push to eliminate registraiton for all in Tier 1, those people should be out of registration at least after probation. Same argument can apply to Teir 2, certainly any who got probation, but after parole otherwise. Teir 3 will always be the tough one, but no one should have registration more than 10 years without another registrable offense — 10 years since last offense, does not need to be only one offense in a lifetime, last offense. The test of time is better than any other assessment, and 5 years is generally considered to be when recidivism rate plummets, so more than 10 years cannot be justified. How about pushing this? When you get the registration done right, the other things come along with no foundation, are much easier to thwart.

Why did this group support making a minimum of 10 years registration, with no automatic end to it at 10 years, for any of the offenses in tier 1? In fact, three of the offenses could have gotten a COR in 7 years and stopped registering, the tier bill increased that to 10, and the showing to get relief is the same standard as a COR anyway. This group supported lengthening registration.

Thanks for all those involved and those that although perhaps not present but helped to fund this on going fight with your donations. Without everyone’s involvement we would not be this far in protecting and fight to get back our rights. So remember to donate what you can. Hope my donation request wasn’t considered bad form. To support ACSOL is to support ourselves and we ALL have a part to play….