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 DOJ Reverses Position on Important Tiered Registry Issue

The California Department of Justice (CA DOJ) has reversed its position on an important tiered registry issue.  Specifically, the state agency has agreed to delete a sentence included in previously issued tier assignment letters that state individuals whose tiers are “to be determined” must wait until their tier has been assigned before petitioning for removal from the registry.  The sentence will also not be included in future tier assignment letters.

“Due to this change in position, individuals who receive a tier assignment letter stating that their tier has not yet been assigned will be allowed to petition for removal as soon as they are eligible,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci.  “That is, no one has to wait for their tier assignment before petitioning for removal from the registry.”

CA DOJ reversed its position in a letter dated Feb. 12 that was sent to ACSOL by email after 5 p.m. that day.  ACSOL previously noted in a letter dated Jan. 12 that there is no provision in the Tiered Registry Law that authorizes the agency to stop an individual from submitting a removal petition as soon as he is eligible to do so even if he has not yet received his tier assignment.

According to the agency’s letter, CA DOJ will update a previously issued document, Answers to Frequently Asked Questions, to reflect that registrants may petition for removal even if the CA DOJ has not yet assigned them to a tier.

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

Wow people forced to register in California are lucky to live in the same state as Janice Bellucci and ACSOL they aren’t playing around 2 months into this year and their allready getting shiit done

One step at a time. Next, the 17b will prevail. It’s the law. Thank God Janice Belluci exists!

Quite poss. A Saint. Right Jo? JB!

I have already submitted her name to the church!

Great Valentines Day Gift for my Spouse and so many more! Many TBD ltr holders

This could be great news for so many people with very old penal codes.

Thank you, Janice and all at ACSOL, for this update. And thank you for your continued work in getting the CA DOJ to recognize the error of their ways.

Any word about tier 3 registrants who’ve had their felonies reduced to misdemeanors? Or are we gonna have to go to the courts on this one?

Contact Atty Chance about that one fact or fiction.

Getting a bureaucracy like CA DOJ to do the right thing is a major win for ACSOL!

This provides an opportunity for anyone not assigned to petition for removal which is great because that in of itself might sway the enforceability of certain offenses being tier three or two in the future especially if someone is successful with their petition prior to a tier assignment. Can’t apply the law unfairly.

3 cheers for Janice and ACSOL. Huzzah! Huzzah! Huzzah!

Any idea when the fight to move non-victim, non-contact (stings, Cp) off of tier 3?????

Thank you, Janice!! That’s very good news. 👍
Because my conviction was out of state, I suspect my tier assignment letter will indicate “TBD”. (Unfortunately, my offense still puts me in Tier 3 [when it should be Tier 2 or even Tier 1].)

Our patron Saint, Saint Janice, and her team of selfless superfriends, prevails again. What would we do with out you!?

@ Jo. SHE IS! And other ACSOL Attys AND The Board for all. ALL they do!
Love it, she may not yet see herself as one YET. Thx b 2 Chance Too!

Any good news is a blessing…keep up the awesome work Janice, Chance, and Company!

Good news, thank you Janice and team.

So, without the tier assignment, how does somebody, or the court, know or prove that they are eligible to petition?

@MichaelRS – It is not necessary to obtain a tier assignment from CA DOJ because the Tiered Registry Law itself assigns individuals convicted of certain offenses to a tier. For example, an individual convicted of PC 288(a) is assigned to Tier 2 provided he has no other convictions. If a person is convicted of more than one sex offense, the Tiered Registry Law will assign that person to the highest tier of any of those offenses. There are more than a few unanswered questions, however, that will probably result in litigation. Some of those questions have to do with “wobblers” that have been reduced to felonies. And of course ACSOL does not agree with all tier assignments under the Tiered Registry Law and will challenge those tier assignments as well.

What? A wobbler reduced to a felony? You mean there’s something worse than a felony? ……….. just kidding, We all understand you probably have been in front of a keyboard all day. Although I am sure if they could, they would make a special designation for “Those offenders”. Something like a super felony.

Hello @ Janice. Can you explain this better for me:
For example, an individual convicted of PC 288(a) is assigned to Tier 2 provided he has no other
convictions. If a person is convicted of more than one sex offense, the Tiered Registry Law will
assign that person to the highest tier of any of those offenses.
Am I reading this wrong, I thought if you had 2 charges at the same time, same case, then you are still a Tier 2? I thought the new AB384 said if you have any Subsequent convictions ( another 288 a), then you are a Tier 3. I have one 288 A a felony and one 647.6 a misdemeanor ( All the same case). From what I am reading you wrote if you have one 288 a and no other convictions then you are a Tier 2, but I am not sure I follow this. You can have a DUI and this just starts your 20 year wait over. But more clearly, if you have another charge with your original charge, like in my situation a misdemeanor 647.6 along with a 288 (a), same case, then I would be a 3? I was thinking all this time I am a Tier 2. This is not what I am reading and would greatly appreciate your help clarifying this. I will also be donating as I see you are fighting for the 17b’s and can need all the help you can get.
Kind thoughts,

Michael ~ I was thinking the same thing.

Since the minimum wait is 10 years, anyone who’s been on registry for at least that long is technically eligible. Then you file and it’s up to the court to figure it out. Maybe they’ll actually look at the underlying crime rather than going by an penal code arbitrarily assigned to a tier by politicians who have nothing good to show come election.

@SR – Unfortunately, you are not correct. Only people assigned to Tier 1 are eligible to petition for removal after a minimum of 10 years. And even if you are assigned to Tier 1, that period of time can be extended for several different reasons including conviction of failure to register. People who are assigned to Tier 2 must wait for at least 20 years while people assigned to Tier 3 are not eligible to petition for removal unless they are assigned to that tier because of their risk level. The amount of time starts with your release from custody (jail or prison) even if you spent only a few hours in county jail being booked.

Wow, so let me get this straight. A tier 3 can petition only if they are put on that tier because of the static risk assessment only. So, if you are put into tier 3 because of your offense 100 million years ago, which has no correlation with actual heightened risk but just the opposite, then you are burnt. I know the static 99 is a joke, but how about at minimum they use the same static 99, or scoreboard I should call it, on the others that are assigned to that tier because of their million year old offense to determine if they still test (if they ever did) as high risk according to their own test that they use to place others in tier 3. Oh wait, their is some rational to that (even though it is flawed and pseudoscience quack minority report shit), the state or the courts can’t be having that huh! Equal protection issue at minimum or something there I would think.

Thank you for the correction.

I do take a lot of issue regarding Tier 3 only being lifetime for those who are NOT deemed too dangerous. It’s interesting that the only test to asses risk is use TO PLACE someone into Tier 3 but isn’t used in reverse to keep people out of Tier 3. It’s like someone who can score a 10 on this test is deemed to be okay enough to eventually get off the registry, but someone who scores a -3 would still be stuck forever based on literally nothing more but arbitrary whims of lawmakers. It feels like there is an equal rights issue here or something along those lines.

The only risk assessment I got (no static 99 score for me) was when I was moved from tier 1 to tier 3 by Lorena Gonzalez..

Norman ~ what do you mean by the only risk assessment not being Static99R. What and who did the risk assessment, and under what grounds did they place you in Tier 3?

Even with a Tier assignment, how do we prove how many years have elapsed? The Tier letters do not specify.

This is why you keep all your adjudication papers in one folder. Don’t count on others to do your work for you.

Do you know the exact date you graduated from Troll school?

@Ditto – Eligibility under the Tiered Registry Law begins when you are released from custody (jail or prison). It can be interrupted if you return to custody for any reason. For example, if a person was released from custody in the year 2000 and returned to custody due to drunk driving in the year 2005, the time he spent in custody for drunk driving is subtracted. That is, if the person went to prison for 3 years due to drunk driving after his conviction for a sex offense, he would lose those 3 years for the purpose of when he is eligible to petition, however, he would still be eligible to petition after 23 years if assigned to Tier 2.

Thank you, Janice. I think it unlikely someone would keep these records for 30 or 40 years especially if rejecting all the ex post facto laws passed since a guilty plea. Even if one kept the sentencing records, that would not prove the date of release from custody plus any subsequent time spent in custody. So while I understand your math, I doubt even the court records at the county courthouse would have the date of release. I’m not sure even the rap sheet would have the date of release, and even if it did, other entries in a rap sheet should be irrelevant. Will the petition judge just assume the date of release is X number of days or years from sentencing after the sentence date? This of course is not an urgent question at this time. Just curious. Maybe the petition form will explain this.


I recently via request obtained some documentation from my court of record. Goes back to 1996. Probation terminated early, then dismissal.

Some of the docs were subtitled with “Copy only – Originals sealed and confidential. ”

That blew me away. Is that AB 1076 in action?

BTW that court had anything I needed in respect to my case.

I know you’re at least 10 years before my case date so that may be a hindrance to obtaining records.

@C J, thanks for the info. The reason I think it could matter is because the burden of proving Eligibility is on us, I think, and the burden of proving us a danger is on the DA. Let’s keep it simple and not cloud the issue with the available variables. Isn’t time eligibility a legal question based on date of release and really nothing more? A Tier 1, 10 years, Tier 2, 20 years with the exceptions that Janice outlined. Then it seems it is a calendar question and nothing more (assuming the correct PC violation is used to tabulate, of course.) So, is there anything in your paperwork that specifies the date you went into custody and the date you were released so you could prove 10 or 20 years have passed since release? I guess it is something like a credit for time served question and maybe it has to be that precise. And that may answer my question. The institution of incarceration would most likely have those records provided they were not destroyed. Then comes Janice’s variables. That could still be a mystery.


Correct. It’s just a calendar issue for those way beyond the threshold.

For those counting days they would have to subtract custody time (jail or prison) from total accrual. Example: 19 yrs, 4 months from disposition minus 15 months incarceration = 18 years, 1 month. Another 1 year and 11 months to meet 20 year threshold.

Thank you, C J. Perhaps I’m not being clear.

“(d) A person described in subdivision (c), or who is otherwise required to register pursuant to the Act shall register for 10 years, 20 years, or life, following a conviction and release from incarceration, placement, commitment, or release on probation or other supervision, as follows:”

The date of RELEASE is a certain and specific date and the burden will be on us to PROVE what that date is, and I suspect many people will have trouble proving what that is. Indeed, there could be many relevant dates to prove.


I understand your concern with having to “prove” your time from release. That said I think you are over complicating the process.

First, you declare your time free under penalty of perjury. And if you are incorrect it is then up to the DAs office to provide the correct with proof that you have provided false information.

That said, to simplify the process and reduce the chance of objections to your petition providing documentation can be a great help. The court house at the least can provide you a copy of your sentencing which will list the duration of your sentencing. From their it gets more complicated, but the government has the documents and if they can not provide them to you then they can definitely not use that same data against you.

Finally, from my own experience in getting the 1203.4 and a CoR the court places the burden on the DAs to prove that your assertions are not accurate. Granted not all judges will enforce that the same.

A side note, if you keep tax records that might be an additional way to “prove” your status over time.

Best of luck, and while all of our experiences have taught not to be optimistic… do not lose hope!

Sorry Ditto. I’m thick headed today.

Your question: “So, is there anything in your paperwork that specifies the date you went into custody and the date you were released so you could prove 10 or 20 years have passed since release? ”

The answer is a most definite yes. It’s all there. This was in 1996.
The only thing outsourced is court reporter transcripts.

Thanks, C J. I didn’t know the court records would have the release date. That certainly simplifies the matter. Now I need something else to obsess about. “Rectify” on Netflix could do it. It looks like it was put together beautifully.

The State of Florida said that because my crime said to be determined in California, I will have to remain in their registry. The to be determined means that if I were to move back to Cali I would still have to register. I received a letter from Janice saying that I was no longer a part of the California jurisdiction, however The State Florida is making us register because California has me in the to be determined status. I know that the DOJ has changed its position towards the to be determined section

Florida will register you no matter what. We all already know this. Your registration in another state has nothing to do with it. Come on people, please do your research before bringing up these questions. There is a matrix on line that gives each state’s current stance on all things related to Registration.
It breaks down the offense, tier system if the state has one, and other data.

FYI , I called my 290 detective today regarding my tier status . My detective told me over the phone I am TBD and nothing has change regarding my status . Without going into great lengths , I wrote a Synopsis and posted it on the thread “ sharing tier assignment experiences.” I’ve been a RSO for 25 years I have a COR from 2014 on file and my convicted PC’s are 261a (2) and 220pc . I asked the detective if I was able to petition the court come July 1, 2021 and he said if you have a tier assignment and you are eligible you will be ‘receiving a letter’ to confirm your eligibility from the DOJ in 2022 in the mail. The detective said no one will be able to petition July 1,2021 until their birthday in 2022 and meet all requirements . In addition, I asked the detective about the TBD and he told me that during his training with the DOJ in the first week of February DOJ told him/ 290 detectives that DOJ will have those who are TBD , assigned to a tier by July 1,2021 . This conversation took place on 2/15/21 at 9:00 am . FYI , people who are worried about if they could petition the court come July 1,2021 with a TBD only simply there are two answers (1) no because eligible candidates will only be eligible to petition come 2022 and (2) those TBD holders will supposedly have their assignment come July 1,2021 and their eligibility will be based off their tier assignment when petitioning for removal.

I went to the local agency who registers me and they said the DOJ is way behind on sending out the letters and wont have to do so until July 2021. Is this true everywhere? And without a letter can I still petition for removal from the registry? its been 35 years.

@Allie and Others – As previously reported on this website and is worth repeating, CA DOJ will NOT mail tier assignment letters to anyone. Instead, individuals must obtain their letter from the local law enforcement office where they register. Based upon information provided to me by many registrants, it appears that some local law enforcement offices will tell you your tier assignment on the phone while others will send your tier assignment letter by email or by U.S. mail. The important thing to remember is that YOU must initiate the request. No one, not even an attorney, can do it on your behalf.

Just did my phone annual and I’m tier TBA assuming because I have no static 99 score. I’m sure its been answered somewhere but my b-day is this month can file in July or do I have to wait?

HI Steve.
No one can petition this year if their birthday is From Jan to June. ( Not sure how far July Bdays can petition off hand). You will have to wait til next year to petition. As for not receiving your Tier due to possibly no static score that is interesting. I haven’t bothered calling my PD yet as I register in a few weeks and will ask then, but I haven’t read if anyone else has been put on a TBD with no score. I am curious if Janice might weigh in on this. I know they can’t require a score, so how will they place people that might be a 3 based on score alone? And you can’t score people from over 35 years ago and I believe I heard Janice say female offenders can’t get a score. so this is interesting. If you don’t mind Steve, can you share your charges and the LE Office( Or County) you used in the other chat box under Tier Registry experiences. I think it helps us out so we can compare. Good Luck

John from what I remember in discussions about the tiered registry if you did not have a static 99 ever you’d be given a tba and they had two years to figure you out. I would be my %99!l that re told tba is because of that reason. I don’t know how they going to cure that issue as ty can’t give a static 99 to somebody after a certain time period. Janice am I correct about this?

Guys Janice is right about this tier registry ordeal. While I even have my petition for pardon it seems I’m not going to get my petition and will just have to wait out my probation unless something comes up and they look at many of these registry ordeals as a double standard. Much and many of these registry issues are so vain and man-made ordinances and ill-moral that government is reaping and sowing in these issues and are leading one into a new wave of destruction with this internet based system of ill gotten gain. So can many say corrupt government and justice for all.

Okay, I know for 110% that I am eligible for Tier 1 and it’s been a few years past the 10 years. So how do I petition?

Is it a DIY form I get from somewhere or do I walk into the public defender’s office (If I was able to afford a private attorney I would hire Chance) and ask them to petition for me?


Janice and team are still gathering all the information about the petition paperwork. Once everything is finalized, then Janice and team will be informing us how to petition for ourselves (without a lawyer).

But if the DA contests your relief, then you will need a hire a lawyer.


That’s just it, the whole system is a joke. I’m supposedly dangerous and was assigned to tier 3 on nothing more than age of victim, yet I’m going on a decade and a half out of prison, no probation or parole, married with children of my own whom I raise, but there’s no way off the registry. It makes zero sense. Not one lawyer fighting these asinine laws have used people such as myself as examples why people in tier 3 should be able to lower tier level or get off the registry…..

It makes sense, just not with regard to their stated purpose. If it was about public safety, it makes zero sense. But, if its really about punishing you for what you did (I.e, victim age) then it makes all the sense in the world.

Placing people in teir3 or TBD because of there static 99 score is just wrong I can’t believe the DOJ really uses this tool to determine whether A person goes free or not.
Id say 90% of the people placed in teir3 have done something in their past that got them there I do agree this is a corrupt system were dealing with but honestly some people’s crimes deserve life time registration.

Good luck


Respectfully disagree w your assertion that 90% deserve tier 3.

Many are on it for viewing a picture. Ya, real lifetime threat there. Others have been falsely accused. The accusation alone is guilt until proven innocent in our society.

Only 5% recidivism rate. Multiple , separate convictions is the only tier 3 imo.

High risk registrants who remain in community 17 years with no new offense pose no more risk than anyone in society. That’s the high risk. Low risk reach that threshold after a few years, if that.

Lifetime for the 30,000 on tier 3 is punishment for I’d say 29,300 or so.

Most understated danger is the Saratso / Static 99R.

Instead of “tiering” people per underlying crime, this “risk” based registry tiers people according to a number. A number based on a pseudo actuarial that’s completely sus to begin with.

It’s just a way of replacing fake statistics with more cleverly coated fake statistics.


Agreed. Tier 3 via static 99 can be challenged. Those there based only on a penal code thrown in there by LE and our favorite assemblywoman are currently sol. (sans successful litigation)

DOJ also states static 99 not applicable after 10 years offense free. They contradict their own words if they deem you a lifer based on an actuary that diminishes.

@CJ I’d like to state again, i had four so called experts that work with the Static-99 every day, and testified in court on the Static-99 regularly as experts, score me with three different scores. It is touted as an easy instrument to use, but it is not i can assure you. Two worked for the prosecution and scored me a 5 and 6, and two were hired by me and scored me a 3, one of those hired by me was a Doctor that worked on the scoring rules for the Static-99 with Dr. Carl Hansen. So you are right, it is ripe for challenges in several way’s, but to challenge it is going to cost money for lawyers and so called experts.


If they bumped up your tier based on that pseudo garbage fight it with all you have.

I hate it that the system asks so much financially from defendants but the state resources are limitless due to OUR tax money.

I’ve spent 100K over 26 years. I’m no better off now other than a PC 1203.4.

I’ve had attorneys who I swear their only ambition in my complaint was billable hours. I’ve seen judges make up law on the bench and prosecutors lie because there are no repercussions. They’re all immune.

The whole situation is utterly and completely broken.

State Supreme Courts (sorta iffy there) and Federal Courts is the way to undo this American experiment in despotic authority.

It does not appear that the Static-99R is valid for 10 years. Case in point: Refer to page 13 of the most recent Static-99R Coding Rules:

“Static risk assessments estimate the likelihood of recidivism *at the time of release* and we expect they would be valid for approximately two years.”


Thus, the Static-99R is only valid for “approximately two years,” from time of release, which would make sense because it is only a snapshot of “risk” from “time of release.”

Furthermore, note that in the tiered registry, the term “as defined in the Coding Rules for that instrument” is cited at least five times. In essence, the state legislature created the Coding Rules, for the Static-99R, to be a de facto—controlling—legal mandate. If the Coding Rules state that the Static-99R is only valid for ‘approximately two years,’ then it must be simple logic that any reliance on the Static-99R, for more than “approximately two years,” is a misuse, per the Coding Rules itself, and is in complete contradiction to the tiered registration law that cites it for use in Tier 3 registration for more than ‘approximately two years.’

That is to say, making people register as a Tier 3, for more than ‘approximately two years,’ does not comport to the Static-99R’s Coding Rules.

I mean this is only one of the thousands of flaws to the Static-99R and its related “risk assessment instruments.” This stuff is Frankenstein and Minority Report rolled all into one.

Static 99 – So, what can someone do who is placed in Tier 3 solely based on the risk score, which is actually a wrong score to the best of my knowledge, AND the person has been crime free now for almost 8 years. Can and should the Tier designation be challenged? Other than the risk factor, the offense itself is a Tier 1 that has NEVER been on the public website. The offense is actually considered one of the offenses that BY LAW can NOT be disclosed on the public site.

AJ – You had responded to this post, but it seems your post is no longer on this site. It may have gotten deleted by accident? In any case, do you mind reposting it?

@someone who cares:
Sorry about that. Apparently I managed to have some seriously jumbled text in my post, so the Mods pulled it and reached out to me to repost it. Life’s been in my way the last week so I haven’t tried to figure out what word(s) I meant to type. That all said, here’s what I wrote with how I think the correction of the once-jumbled words (noted in bold) should read:

I have long advocated for using their own data to fight them. I think it would be wonderful to get the State on the record touting how well the S-99 works for assessing, how the S-99 has been cross-validated and tested, etc., etc., etc. Once they’ve sung their song about what a great, nearly fool-proof, tool the S-99 is, I’d go beyond to the rest of the S-99 story. I’d show them that those same wonderful S-99 data also say x, y, & z about a RC such-and-such years offense free. From there, it would seem there’s a valid argument that the law as written and as applied to me is irrational–especially if it was written contrary to the S-99 data *and* CASOMB, the subject-matter experts the Legislature itself created to handle this! Or, it can once again be shown to be animus. “Your Honor, the Defendant’s own data and own experts say Plaintiff is not a risk, and yet Defendants have chosen to single him out anyway, which speaks to animus.” Or something along that line; I’ve not thought through the exact argument because it’s not something I’ll ever need.

The post wasn’t the most clearly written but I wanted to post it as originally presented to prevent introducing confusion or greater Moderator work.

For the record, I’m blaming the typo on one of my Irish Wolfhounds dragging a wet beard across my laptop’s touchpad. They have messed up more things for me on my computer than you can imagine!

AJ – Thank you for re-posting this. I hope your Irish Wolfhounds don’t interrupt you too often…lol. Pretty neat brand of dogs. I have done so much research on the Static-99R that I am confident I understand what it can and can not do. If I don’t get our Tier assignment corrected, I will need to put all this research to use and hire an attorney possibly. I hope it won’t come to that and they will realize their mistake for the wrong Tier assignment (at least that is what I have concluded).

@ YUP: I believe one’s Tier level is based on offense conviction, not on assessed risk level.

@CJ and @David They will be putting people in tier 3 based on a high Static-99 score who would otherwise be a tier 1, it is in the statute now. Also CJ, i was not bumped up because of score, I’m relating what happened in the past to me to let others know that they should question their Static-99 score if it’s being used against them adversely. There are going to be plenty of people who this will affect over time i think.

It’s both. Primarily, you’re tiered based on your conviction code and whether it was a felony or misdemeanor (in most cases). But after that’s determined, they then look at the Static-99 score, if applicable. And if you have a 6+, you automatically placed into Tier 3 regardless of what you offense was. You could’ve been convicted with the lowest of the low registerable offense, and still be placed into their 3 based on your Static-99. But the reverse is currently not true. You can score a negative 3 (lowest possible), but that won’t help you to be downgraded tiers or be released.

Why on earth would the Birthday have anything to do with when you can petition for removal? If it starts 7/1/21 (not sure why it couldn’t be 1/1/21 – they sure had enough time to get prepared), so anyone who has met the time criteria should be able to petition starting 7/1/21 period!

@ Someone who cares: There’s no valid reason. CADOJ wanted it so their poor whittle staffers aren’t overwhelmed by all the many applications for removal they’re going to receive.
No other reason than that.

Congrats to all those in cali!!! This is a great win!!! Now if only something like this could happen in NV!!!!

Dave ~ Where do you see a statute that says “A” The static99R is used and “B” that they are using a high score for Tier I to put them into Tier 3?

Here you go. This is the bill which is now law for the tired registry.

Use the Search function on your phone or hit Ctrl+F on your PC keyboard to launch the search and search for RISK. The second hit will take you to line (D) of Tier 3 that notes:

(D) The person’s risk level on the static risk assessment instrument for sex offenders (SARATSO), pursuant to Section 290.04, is well above average risk at the time of release on the index sex offense into the community, as defined in the Coding Rules for that instrument.

This is referring to Static-99. And Well Above means 6+ per how they refer to various scores.

@someone who cares @SR answered your question. What I’m not sure of is who gets scored, what they mean by at time of release into the community. Are they only scoring people when their released now and in the future, are they going back years or decades and scoring people, it’s pretty ambiguous the way it’s worded.
And who is doing the scoring, and what training have they received, and why should people have to hire an attorney and hire an expert on the Static-99 to check it or refute it, and if their scoring is wrong shouldn’t they have to reimburse you the thousands that it will cost you?

There’s nothing special about the Static-99 that requires extensive training. It’s 10 questions, which only two requires a bit more extensive knowledge of court proceedings. The rest are super simple. For example, question 1 is how old were you at the time of the crime? Question 2 is have you every been in a relationship where you’ve lived with the person for 2+ years prior to the offense? Was the victim related? Did you know the victim? etc. You can simply Google Static-99 to find the test form and look at the questions. It’s dumb.

SR and Dave ~ I don’t really think my question was answered, but I also know that all this is very confusing. In the article attached here (page 2), it sounds like the Static99 is only relevant to Tier III. Some Tier III can petition to get off after 20 years with a favorable Static99 (some exceptions apply). Tier I and II will just be based on the offense. That is my take on it, so if anyone has different or better information, please share.

@someone who cares

Your initial question was asked regarding where in the law it states that the static 99 score is used to move someone into tier three regardless of their offense score (see SRs response above with the link to the actual law and instructions on how to search for the relevant criteria).

In the verbiage of the law the only way tier 3 can petition is if the only reason they are on tier 3 is because of their static 99 score.

I believe starting in 2006 a law was passed where everyone who was convicted of a sex crime was required to get static 99 assessment or the more broad term. The evaluation is made as part of sentencing. Often done by someone in the probation/parole departments.

Many people in the initial implementation did not get a score and those with convictions before the law went into force did not receive scores.

As stated in the static99 documentation it’s not valid to go back in time and re apply the test. It is my belief that is why they created the category of TBD, to address the lack of scores many people have.

While reading the DoJ FAQ and other documents makes it seem more complicated, it is spelled out very clearly in the law itself.

Also for the link you provided on page three it spells out the case where someone with an out of state offense would be placed in tier 3 for the reason of the static 99 score.

Like many people here, I hope and work to make sure they remove the static 99 score as it used only to increase the punishment … also it has many other flaws discussed at length here.

hi Janice i have a question on the minimum wait time. Does the time when you are on probation or parole included in the wait time or is it excluded? i am asking because my wait time for is close to 10 years if the time on probation is included but if it is excluded i need to wait another 3 years, as i was on probation for 3 years with no jail time.

For the purposes of true probation, the time starts counting from the date of your conviction, even if you had to server jail time in county.

For prison, I believe time starts counting from the time you’re granted release on parole. The time you spend behind bars here is doesn’t count.

In both cases, if you end up serving time for other charges, the time pauses while you’re doing this. So let’s say you’re 5 years towards your 10 years on Tier 1 and you end up being arrested, convicted, and serving prison time for theft, your count towards that 10 year mark is paused.

SR – I agree with you and read everything the same. If granted probation, time starts at the date of conviction. I on parole, time starts after release from prison.

thanks for the reply SR. i was convicted of a felony and a 5 year probation. but had a plea deal that drops the felony to a misdemeanor as the case i was convicted was a wobbler and early termination of my probation if i had no problem during my probation period. The only jail time is when i was first arrested until i was released after paying my bail which was couple of hours. I took the plea deal and was convicted around summer of 2012 and started registering couple of days later. which means next year will be 10 years since i started registering. Anyways thank for answering my question. Now to hope i am in tier 1 since the felony was reduced to a misdemeanor if not i am on for a lifetime. thanks again SR

Where can we find the DOJ’s decision for changing their position for people whom have their tier assignment TBD they to can petition the court for removal starting 07/01/2022 . I don’t see the change on their F&Q memo . Thank you

Janice can you please provide me a source for the to be determined change so that I can show my lawyer

Yes, Me also…join this polite request a further explination of the TBD catigory….especially conisdering that most of us that are To Be Determined are placed here specifically because our convictions are decades old without further problems.

The truth is that people that have been crime free for multiple decades should not be pushed back…but rather, logically, should go the the head of the line.

Our lives have been clean, let us go!

Best Wishes, James I

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x