CA: Lawsuit Challenges Tiered Registry Law Provision

[ACSOL]

A lawsuit has been filed challenging a provision of the California Tiered Registry Law that assigns individuals convicted of similar offenses to two different tiers.  Specifically, the law assigns individuals convicted of Penal Code 288(a) to Tier 2, which requires a minimum of 20 years registration, and yet assigns individuals convicted of Penal Code 288(c) to Tier 3, which requires lifetime registration.

“The only difference between these two offenses is the age of the victim,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci.  “And the current language of the law punishes individuals whose victims are older more harshly than individuals whose victims are younger.  This makes no sense and is a violation of the equal protection clause in the state constitution.”

The plaintiff in the lawsuit is a 79-year-old man who was convicted of Penal Code 288(c) more than 20 years ago and has been assigned to Tier 3.  If the same man was convicted of Penal Code 288(a), he would have been assigned to Tier 2.  The defendants in the case are the California Department of Justice and Attorney General Xavier Becerra.

According to the lawsuit, there are additional provisions in the Tiered Registry Law that also punish more severely individuals convicted of less severe offense such as misdemeanor sexual battery (Penal Code 243.4(e)) and possession of child pornography (PC 311.11(a)).  Additional lawsuits are expected to be filed in the future to address those provisions.

This lawsuit was filed in Sacramento Superior Court and the final decision in the case could affect registrants throughout the state of California.  It is believed to be the first lawsuit filed challenging a provision of the Tiered Registry Law.

CA Tiered Registry Complaint (PDF)

 

 

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

 

  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. 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.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. 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.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. 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.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. 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.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. 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.
  23. 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.  
 

120 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

17b: I don’t think addressing the 17b will be a problem. I believe the DOJ is supposed to train LE and it’s turned into a mess. It sounds like (reading this blog) we have a multitude of individuals whose 17b is correctly placing them in the correct tier and those of you that aren’t. This would be a legal and civil nightmare for the DOJ otherwise. The one question I have, is how will a Felony Expungement affect a Felony? I think it’s clear most 17b’s are tier 1. Yet, are there misdemeanors put in tier 2? If so, how will an expungement affect them?

Is there anyone out there that has received a certificate of rehab but now under the tiered registry must register under tier 3? My husbands address was never listed before , now he’s been assigned to tier 3, our address will be listed but he had a CoR. How does the same government that says he’s rehabilitated also say he’s so dangerous our address needs to be listed online. Hoping to take legal action but wondering if anyone else is facing this?

Yep, got my bomb dropped on me today when I registered: Tier 3 Lifetime. 22 years Tier 2 and now I am high risk. Wow. Can’t be right. All the hope for Janice and Chance to fix this.

The ink’s not even dry from the governor’s signature(as far as implementation)
on sb384,and all ready the legislators have swayed from the original frame work modeled into sb421<384.The lawmakers have inscribed a revision to sb 384:removing the reflective nature of tier assignment to public notification.
288(a) is now in full address and 288(c) misdemeanor is zip code only-but tier
3?=lifetime.This is recent activity and another example of the California constitutional protections being neutered away(behind closed doors) from this group of people
Take a look,they've marked it away. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB384&showamends=false

SB384: Individuals in California who this law will affect,should be mindful of any
modifications made to the language since its signature by the governor back in
2017.I’m impressing upon the community here that this is what has been done.
It’s not a false claim.In the telephone conversations through the past few years
our professionals hosting the call-ins remark quite assuredly that tier 2 will be
in zip code only,and tier 3 will be full address.Why?Because that was the law
contained in SB 421<384.Why is this important? Well,first,it make intuitive sense,
the more serious the crime the more information offered.Secondly,it codifies
and strengthens tier placement arguments for the offender.Lastly,it structures
a more non-bias approach to tier placement.And in this sense,it is offense-
based.However,this particular language has be marked over in the law as it
is today.Why should one be concerned?Well,since tier disclosure will not be
displayed here in California and the level of disclosure does not reflect
tier assignment,then the law can't be challenged with confidence.
There is many intelligent commenters on this board:Can you edify use
to way this was done recently,and how the administrators of SB384
escaped repercussions.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB384&showamends=false

Again,tier assignment will not be offered to the public and the level of personal
information displayed will not reflect tier placement.Can any intelligent commenters
give edification to why this would be a matter of concern or not.
Thank you,R

This will be my final comment for this issue.I’ll digress with a question:
does anyone out there remember reading how public notification
was going to relate to tier assignment with SB384?Do you also recall
that all tier 2s would have there zip only listed.As well,that all tier 3s
would be in full address listing?Because I\we distinctly saw,for example,
288(a) under zip code category.Well,now it’s back in full address.
288(c)misdemeanor is in zip category;this gives the impression,
along with the fact that there’re not publishing tier assignment,
that nothing has changed from the old law.Of course there’re removing
all former exemptions except incest. One could almost find his\her tier
by knowing whether it was in zip code or full address,or of no listing at all.
It just seems that SB384 has been abrogated in this respect,and with this
provision of the signed SB384.Thank you r

Thank you Mr.D

My family member had a 17b misdemeanor for 311.11 felony in 2019. Late 2020 they are no longer on public registry – hurrah ! In Jan 2021 they received a Tier 3 letter from local law enforcement. They are still excluded from ML and National Registry and only registered with law enforcement.

Has anyone else had this situation ?

Thank you Janice and ACSOL for your work!

For 288(c) 1 reduced to misdemeanor per 17b, does anyone know if any other legal course of action seeking relief and removal from registry can be , or has been successfully achieved ? I can’t seem to find anything online showing cases where a conviction for 288c 1, misdemeanor, has been successfully vacated or dismissed. Is the Tiered Registry the only hope a 288c.1 can have hope in, if they do change the Tier Level from 3 to a 2 someday in the future if a change in the legislation corrects the Tier level issue being challenged by Janices lawsuit that was file in Feb 2021? If 288c 1 ends up remaining a tier 3, is there no other way to get 288(c) 1 erased at all ?

Hello Janice,

Inquiry as to the status of this suit.

Unfortunately, the Sacramento Superior Court charges to search the database online. Sheesh.