General Comments August 2020

I stumbled upon reading this “California’s Right to Privacy” pdf, a Pepperdine Law Review by J. Clark Kelso on Jan 15, 1992.
Link: https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Kelso-Californias-Constitutional-Right-to-Privacy.pdf

The current form of the registry, where it is shared for all to easily be seen probably hadn’t transpired yet, considering Smith v Doe 2003 wasn’t brought up in the early 1990s.

California’s amendment to its constitution to add “right to privacy” was passed on July 5, 1972.

Here’s an excerpt at the conclusion of the pdf review:
*** Start of Excerpt ***
Argument in Favor of Proposition 11

The proliferation of government snooping and data collecting is threatening to destroy our traditional freedoms. Government agencies seem to be competing to compile the most extensive sets of dossiers of American citizens. Computerization of records makes it possible to create “cradle-to-grave” profiles on every American.

At present there are not effective restraints on the information activities of government and business. This amendment creates a legal and enforceable right of privacy for every Californian. The right of privacy is the right to be left alone. It is a fundamental and compelling interest. It protects our homes, our families, our thoughts, our emotions, our expressions, our personalities, our freedom of communion, and our freedom to associate with the people we choose. It prevents government and business interests from collecting and stockpiling unnecessary information about us and from misusing information gathered for one purpose in order to serve other purposes or to embarrass us.

Fundamental to our privacy is the ability to control circulation of personal information. This is essential to social relationships and personal freedom. The proliferation of government and business records over which we have no control limits our ability to control our personal lives. Often we do not know that the records even exist and we are certainly unable to determine who has access to them.

Even more dangerous is the loss of control over the accuracy of government and business records on individuals. Obviously, if the person is unaware of the record, he or she cannot review the file and
correct inevitable mistakes. Even if the existence of this information is known, few government agencies or private businesses permit individuals to review their files and correct errors.

The average citizen also does not have control over what information is collected about him. Much is secretly collected. We are required to report some information, regardless of our wishes for privacy or our belief that there is no public need for the information. Each time we apply for a credit card or a life insurance policy, file a tax return, interview for a job, or get a drivers’ license, a dossier is opened and an informational profile is sketched Modern technology is capable of monitoring, centralizing and computerizing this information which eliminates any possibility of individual privacy.

The right of privacy is an important American heritage and essential to the fundamental rights guaranteed by the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Ninth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. This right should be abridged only when there is a compelling public need. Some information may remain as designated public records but only when the availability of such information is clearly in the public interest.

Proposition 11 also guarantees that the right of privacy and our other constitutional freedoms extend to all persons by amending Article I and substituting the term “people” for “men.” There should be no ambiguity about whether our constitutional freedoms are for every man, woman and child in this state.

KENNETH CORY
Assemblyman, 69th District
GEORGE R. MOSCONE
*** End of Excerpt ***

Bullet points on that excerpt.
1. “the right to privacy is the right to be left alone”.
2. “It prevents government and business interests from collecting and stockpiling unnecessary information about us and from misusing information gathered for one purpose in order to serve other purposes or to embarrass us.”
3. “Even more dangerous is the loss of control over the accuracy of government and business records on individuals.”
4. “The right of privacy is an important American heritage and essential to the fundamental rights guaranteed by the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Ninth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.”

== Thoughts on the bullet points ==
1. The registry runs contrary to “right to be left alone”.
2. The registry is a way to embarrass one specific group, which includes in-person re-reporting.
3. The registry prevents us from looking at our own private information, preventing us from proving its accuracy, which Janice has fought on our behalf. Yet, the government has no legal right to do this as it is preventing the accuracy of the information to be identified by said person, as dictated by the passing of the amendment.
4. I’ll use another excerpt which succinctly spells out what is meant:
*** Start of Excerpt ***
In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the U.S. Supreme Court recognized the constitutional right of privacy emanating from the penumbral application of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Ninth Amendments to the Constitution.
Justice Douglas; wrote:

“[S]pecific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that give them life and substance. Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment is one, as we have seen. The Third Amendment in its prohibition against the quartering of any soldiers ‘in any house’ in time of peace without the consent of the owner is another facet of that privacy. The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the ‘right of the people to be secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.’ The Fifth Amendment in its Self-Incriminating Clause enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which the government may not force him to surrender to his detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: ‘The numeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.’ “The Fourth and Fifth Amendments were described in Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 630, 5 S. Ct. 524, 532, 29 L. Ed. 746, as protection against all governmental invasions ‘of the sanctity of a
man’s home and the privacies of life.’ ”
*** End of Excerpt ***

What 4. points to with the “right to pursue and obtain privacy” is that it is a protected liberty. Thus, a loss of liberty is punishment.

Recently, California residents are able to not have their information sold online unless you agree with it, I think it’s called a CCPA. This means California’s “right to privacy” does more than the US Constitution.

The privacy law was added to fend off the future usage of the electronic age. Under this current registry scheme, a registrant’s loss privacy is made to embarrass us with in-person re-reporting as well as limit our freedom of travel as we are supposedly no longer under custody. The state is compelling an individual who no longer is under custody to continue to lose their privacy under this current registration scheme. Your private information is shared, under penalty of law, on your passport. That state is labeling every registrant a current high risk that certain jobs can negate your potential employment or that any military installation base can ban you from entering, both embarrassing events.

Lifetime registration under this current form in California disseminates private information willingly to the world. Before Kelly v Municipal, there was no pathway to be removed from the registry via 1203.4, if you qualified. But back then, only the police department would have that information. Then came PC 290.5 in the 2000s, which negated 1203.4 de-registration and pushed it to a 10-year wait for the Certificate of Rehabilitation. Which also means the governor could pardon you, but that is a rarity. Which brings us to the new tiered registration of 10 years, 20 years, and lifetime.

What boggles my mind is that there are some people that cannot get off the registry. Yet, the California Constitution stated in 1972 that the “right to pursue and obtain privacy” (the right to be left alone) be an inalienable right. The loss of privacy is a loss of liberty under the 1972 amendment. Thus, having no avenue to de-register is unconstitutional.

The loss of privacy should be regained once out of custody, just like every other convict. To reaffirm that privacy is a protected right in California, 1203.4 states the following, “the court shall thereupon dismiss the accusations or information against the defendant”. Yet, the registry disregards this privacy protection given by the 1972 amendment. Why?

What makes PC290.007 (disregards 1203.4 to de-register) unconstitutional, is it simply pushes back the pathway to de-register from one’s probationary period (a few months to five years) to a total of a 10-year wait to regain once’s privacy. There is no rationale between extension to the total of 10 years wait for de-registration as there are no studies between 1958 and the passing of PC 290.5 (in the early 2000s) to increase the punishment of loss of privacy, which was succinctly enumerated in PC 1203.4.

The purpose of the 1972 amendment was to limit government’s intrusion in California.

I don’t know if there are any other cases that brings up “right to privacy” in California, but this 1992 Law Review shares the law is nebulous as there is no concrete definition of privacy, as if it were waiting for an opportunity to be utilized specifically for “right to privacy” as opposed to relying on other US amendments. Welp, the registry is the loss of privacy and the state has increased years in the loss of privacy as well as not have a pathway to obtain privacy for those who are designated lifetime registrants.

The loss of “right to privacy” is a loss of an inalienable right under the Ca Constitution. Why can’t this current form of the registry be unconstitutional once you are no longer under custody to regain your rights?

Historical event here, but follow it for a sec in applicability…

Aug 6, 1890 was the first electrocution in the USA (Buffalo, NY specifically). When the person scheduled for this appealed to SCOTUS, he was denied on the following cruel and unusual punishment grounds of which he appealed: “electrocution was not cruel and unusual punishment clarifying that ‘[p]unishments are cruel when they involve torture or lingering death'” Daily life for a person forced to register can seem to be a lingering death as we have discussed here many times. However, since this is what SCOTUS thought then about electrocution, they would need a lot more to think anything is cruel and unusual punishment.

Americans must pay a $2,350 government fee to renounce their citizenship…

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/americans-continue-giving-up-citizenship-at-record-levels-reports-bambridge-accountants-new-york-301107675.html

I wonder how many of these expats are ex-PC290s and feel that $2350 to tell the American government to go F itself is money well spent?

Does anyone have the code that states 1203.4 can’t be denied as long as you’ve done everything on probation without issue?

I want to get my record cleaned up and would like to do it on my own since it should all be pretty straight forward, but wanted to have this in my back pocket in case the judge decides to play games like they sometimes seem to do. Thanks!

I have to say, i have hit a low depressive point with this covid pandemic. I was building up clientele for my business, getting ahead of my bills, and starting to save some actual money. Then POW! For seven months now I have been slowly draining my savings due to loss of clients. Tried applying at a bunch of jobs, but, well, most of you know how good that usually goes. Applied for unemployment but was refused.
Had moved to a new(er) apartment, but then without good income , I didn’t want to deal with a deferred rent situation, so I found a room with the help of someone. It is unfortunately a disaster of a situation. Pot smoking freeloader retiree living free in her aunt’s home and watches evangelists all day and then spouts profanity on the phone to her daughter all evening. Now there’s a healthy environment for someone already stressed out.
I was told it could be worse, could be without a room. But really, at this point, is that really worse. Seems this damn registry keeps stopping me from moving forward. Sure , every day is a step forward, but to what end. If I drank, did drugs, or just didn’t give a rat’s ass about myself, then I could likely deal with it better. But when I am constantly told by “uniformed” people how nice I am, or how much help I have been, I think,” sure, but would you have said that if you knew.”
I guess I am just tired of trying and getting knocked back. Especially when there is somewhere I could be that wants me, needs me, and really cares about me. Knowing that that is all but ended and that my remaining days are stuck in this hellhole of a society is putting me into a serious funk . So I come here, unload, then turn on my meditation music, and repeat it all over again tomorrow.

The QAnon Madness has me worried that sooner or later some kind of violence will develop against registrants. That is, above and beyond what is presently experienced.

This SHOULD BE of particular importance in California where the legislature wants to publish additional names and addresses to the registry by ending exemptions while at the same time, delaying relief from registration for many out of concern for clogging the courts in 2021.

The QAnon folks are posting some remarkably aggressive memes, sharing RSO exposure websites, and other content that is aimed at normalizing offenses against people who have already paid their debt to society, and are quietly trying to rebuild their lives within the boundaries of the law.

What’s upsetting about this is it is based on a conspiracy theory that’s gotten out of hand. And well, we know full well what happens when that happens, each and every time…

It would be good to see pressure on the legislature to refuse to delay relief from the lifetime requirement to register, to make termination automatic, and to resist the temptation to publish more names and addresses, if not to abolish the public registry altogether. Likewise, it would be helpful for social media to classify some of the QAnon rhetoric as violent and false and to remove it from their platforms.