ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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


Monthly Meetings | Recordings (6/12 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

Click here to sign up now for ACSOL’s Online EPIC Conference: Empowered People Inspiring Change Sept 17-18
Download a PDF of the schedule

ACSOL NewsCalifornia

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)

 

 

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 do not solicit funds
  • If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  • All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  • 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.  
 
Subscribe
Notify of
115 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Go Lawsuit!!!

The Ninth Circuit has determined that a conviction under California Penal Code 288(c)(1) (lewd and lascivious acts on a child who is 14 or 15 years old when the defendant is at least 10 years old than the the child) is neither a crime involving moral turpitude nor categorically a crime of child abuse.

Where did you get this information?

@Robert Brandy: If it’s available to you, can you post a link to this decision or at least the case name? This has the potential for being extremely helpful to me. I have a 288(c)(1) and a 17b reduction.
Thank you!

Menendez v Whitaker (11/8/18)

@ Robert Brandy and Pursuit:

Thank you both for the info!!! This is awesome to know for anyone with a 288(c)(1).

@ Robert Brandy and Pursuit:
Indeed, thank you both!

Ok easy fix say the legislators…move them all to tier 3. Or you’re right 288 (a) is now tier 3

Yeah, that looks to be a very real possibility. Well the CP registrants would be happy as they have done nothing wrong and there is no victim (according to them). Okay yes that is overstated but they don’t seem to grasp that consumption drives production. Production is worse than most 288(a) because we are not posting them online – which causes its own additional harm. That is the part LEA gets a bit miffed. We all did something we should not have done. Some more than others, but throwing each other under the bus???

I think that’s a myth. I seriously doubt many are making money off said images, and if anything they like sharing images with people who are of the same mindset to reinforce what they’re doing isn’t wrong. Yes, they’re breaking the law, but to treat them as if they committed the molestation itself is asinine. There’s plenty of videos online with Isis in Iraq beheading people. If you saw one of the videos should you be charged and treated as if you physically beheaded someone? The truth is all common sense goes out the door when crimes involve anything to do with sexuality.

Please explain to me how consumption drives production for those of us who anonymously looked at this indirectly and ended up with a single charge of 311.11 (A)?

@ Truth and Norman

When A person gets involved with a minor, it is viewed by the “offender” as a relationship. The young person is known and cared about by the offender. There are of course instances where this is not the case but the vast majority follow what I wrote.

When a child is used for production of child porn the child is not cared for and is dehumanized to an object. Moving forward, When a community of people come together for pornographic material it drives the producers to produce more as their community likes it/requests more and they receive validation and compliments on their production. Others also want to contribute so they work towards getting their own thing going. I would think the mental aspect of it is not much different than how people behave on social media wanting (internally needing) those “likes”.

LEA is not going to take it easy on you just because you did not physically touch. Porn production is a nasty F’n business for adults and pure hell for kids. Police are not going to look at it and say oh he only ever downloaded so let him go. Downloads are counted by the websites. page views are counted by the websites. It all adds up. You are not innocent. There was a victim. That victim experienced something that is above and beyond A touch. While in counseling they told us flat out that 1 in 5 kids ever develop any issues from being molested. That is the full range from quirk to disaster. So does that mean that because my victim probably had no issues that i should not have been charged? No it does not. I deserved it. I deserved the prison time. So did you.

Please stop trying to pass yourself off as some sort of better than the rest, little angle. Some of the people here, know better.

Nice straw man argument. There is a difference between what people convicted of CP are saying (that we do not deserve to be on Tier 3) and what you say we’re saying. We’ve been thrown under the bus with this tiered registry. I would have been eligible for a COR in 2024 and would have gotten it in the county where I live, but no longer an option, and now I am stuck with lifetime registration. So yeah, if everyone else gets thrown onto Tier 3, then we’ll ask you How does it feel now? This has nothing to do with saying we didn’t deserve jail time. It has to do with encouraging a poorly conceived crap law because a few people might benefit from it while many others are made worse.

@AW, if a couple wanted a chilld but it was born with birth defects, you wouldn’t condemn the parents for wanting a child.

I get that you and other CP convictions that should be tier 1 and 2 were thrown under the bus. But it was not done to you by ACSOL. The original Tiered Registry Bill that ACSOL supported was killed by Assembly Chair of Appropriations, Lorena Gonzalez Then Gov. Brown forced her to bring it back, but she and the police union that supports her poisoned it with the CP changes

ACSOL wanted a way for a majority of people to get off the registry, proving that sex crimes would NOT increase when registrants would be allowed to get back to normal lives and that the registry is a scam. This would then back up ACSOL’s desire to support adding an off-ramp for ALL level 3’s

Hi, Roger. I’m not putting all the blame at ACSOL’s feet, but they should have known better what politicians would do with this, and will do with this (put practically everyone on Tier 3). The lofty goals you say are ACSOL’s aims will not be achieved quickly, certainly not in the 3 years time where a COR would have provided me relief. The COR should have been preserved. Now, even if you are Tier 1 and Tier 2, people who should have no say in your offramp from the registry can play games with you. I respect your opinion, but the main point of my post was that the previous poster seems to think that we who fall under 311.11 are deserving of Tier 3 b/c he is probably on Tier 3. Or he’s on Tier 2 and that makes him feel superior. I don’t know, but the idea that the public needs to be informed that I am the greatest risk to them because….I might go home and look at stuff on my computer? (which is all that 311.11 can at most be) is ludicrous. I think the majority of people charged and convicted with CP would agree that, just like us, the vast majority of registrants should be Tier 1 and Tier 2, or better yet, just not have to register anymore because the law is dumb. I am not sure what original poster’s problem is, but I could not leave that comment alone. I hope you have a great day, Roger. I do sincerely appreciate your input.

Yup, @ Steve. 288 a is now gonna be a Tier 3 before long. Once this lawsuit is handled they are gonna roast a lot of registrants. Though I agree this is wrong having 288 c on a 3 I think the timing is bad. No way they are gonna let a’s stay on 2 with c’s. Good luck guys, but I think many of you are gonna get fried by good ole Republicans and Democrats!

How about filing a suit challenging the no individual risk assessment issue. I do not get it, That seemed to be an issue that carried weight in other cases and states such as Alaska, Hawaii and I believe Oregon as well. That would solve a lot of problems and issues such as equal protection and law suit after law suit. Just seems logical. Especially in state court with much broader constitutional protections and I think a favorable SC. Individual risk assessments a must, not static offense based. Only way it is rational at all. Other wise just as people already know the legislature will fix the issue all right, and not for the better.

…and Michigan it was a huge issue. You’re right Mike. Hopefully this lawsuit brings about INDIVIDUAL risk assessment. If 40000 288 (a)’s get re-assigned there would be another lawsuit as that would be without any assessment.hell in would pay 1k for it

Thank you for working on our behalf.

Trust Janice et al. Her and the crew got us this far. We’ll tear it down brick by brick.

Some of us won’t see the fall. As long as we help the drive our younger generations won’t be cursed by this experiment gone wrong.

The legislature deemed it bloated, broken and ineffective. The tier version is the incremental change.

It’s clear they want to tether quite a few for life, but did so throwing darts blindfolded.

No way they move 288(a) to tier III. That would go full circle back to where we started, bloated and ineffective.

It’s a numbers game for the legislature. What’s the breakdown on tier numbers? It should be 60,000, 35,000 and 5,000 without asking too much for now.

Lorena and her buddies ensured 30,000 or so went tier III. Gotta keep that LE cash register ringing….

This is in fact exactly what the legislature did in 2014 under another case that was in our favor under the equal protection clause.

Well thought out! What is PC 243.4 (e)? Are you saying that a misdemeanor PC 243.4 (e)! Is a tier 3? I imagine your lawsuit is well thought out and your planning ahead. I would imagine one of my biggest concerns is ensuring the DOJ recognizes 17b (that’s clear cut). My other question might be, how will they address someone with a 17b/expungement? And, how might they address a felony straight expungement? Thank you Janice. Great time to make contributions

@Janice, why not also 243.4(a)? If 288(a) is T-2, I would imagine 243.4(a) should be also, since it would seem it’s less of a crime in comparison, especially when it’s a case of familial related case as opposed to a random victim.

God speed Janice and team!

Drew, are you talking about a felony PC 243.4a?

Yes, felony.

288(c) should definitely be tier2 I think the DOJ made a mistake on this one it’s not surprising though SB384 was rushed and signed behind closed doors.
i think Scott Wener was trying get the bill passed by any means necessary he new ACSOL would be quick to challenge its many flaws once the Law became effective.
fileing a Lawsuit could go 3 ways in my opinion
1.the DOJ fixes their mistake and place 288(c) in tier1
2.they switch 288(c) to tier2
3.they switch 288(a) to tier3 and switch 288(c) to tier2
Ether way it’s a mistake that needs to be fix.
To all the people in California convicted of CP i would like to say A picture is worth A thousand words or should I say a thousand years

Good luck

First off, congrats. This is a huge wrong that needs to be fixed. But… I think by bringing up 288 (a)’s you are gonna hang em! Once this gets around the legislatures they will get all the 288 (a)’s on 3. I know you mentioned you have something to stop that, but I can’t possibly believe you have something over hateful politicians, for one MMelendez, who already fought to have 288 on Tier 3, will by right at the leading of the pack. Take in a possible recall election, I think this spells a lot of bad doom. I understand what needed to be done, but at the expense of 40,000 registrants? I hope this turns out in everyone’s favor, but I think this is opening a bad can of worms.

We have been members of ACSOL for about 4 years now. Always enjoyed the meetings and going to Sacramento to fight for these injustices. I completely agree 288 C1 should no way in the world be a Level Tier 3! I have no idea even how this happened. But I have to be honest now. I am shocked over the language in the lawsuit. Janice or whomever wrote this up, I think the chance of 288 (a) getting off is over with now. And like a few others that wrote above, once legislatures read the lawsuit they will scratch their heads and fight to put 288 A back on Level Tier 3. We fought our butts off in SAC to defeat Senator Melissa Melendez’s proposal to put 288 on Tier 3 for good. We did not win by a landslide. She degraded us calling 288 a violent, sick, molesters, that have a minimum of 200 victims. Now, after reading the complaint, yes Janice I am very upset and mad. Why would we risk this so soon? Why did we not at least let the courts start removing some 288 a’s to send a message,”hey look, we can let some off, they are doing fine in the community lingo”. But with the language in this lawsuit, ACSOL clearly pointed out that “288 (a) is a violent felony, the victim is more vulnerable, and really after reading this, how could you not (as a legislature) run to the capital and submit harsh legislation against 288 A? Saying this is worse, IMO, is complete bologna. My spouse was 18 years old, consensual relationship, NO sex, and the victim was 5 days away from being 14. The offense was not a violent one at that time, this is new crap legislatures created 15 years after my spouse’s 1990 conviction. A 288 A was never a violent felony in the past, it was a serious one. Why would ACSOL throw this violent term in pointing out 288 (a) to sound like sick violent predators! Since when is a 288 a offense worse than a 60 year old man having sex with a 15 year old! You will never in my lifetime convince me of this! Why would ACSOL push this language that honestly after reading, painted a strong picture of 288 (a)’s being violent and the age of their victims, being young. I don’t get it. I am floored, I have to tell you. If I honestly did not know that there are many situations where high school romances can land you on the registry with a 288 A conviction, I would think the 288 A code that was listed in the lawsuit, was like a Jerry Sandusky crime. In the lawsuit it states, “allowing 288 a’s to be a tier 2 and 288 C’s to be a tier 3 are arbitrary and irrational”! Again, if am a legislature reading this language in the lawsuit, I would be failing my community if I didn’t go after 288 a’s.
I really don’t have anything more to say, but WOW! I feel so bad for the 288 C, and I hope this works in your favor, but to all the 288 A, the 50,000 of us, that were not convicted of a violent felony before CA changed that language, and those that had a consensual relationship being 4 years within the age of your victim, you can kiss your chances goodbye of ever getting off the registry. Almost sounds like to me that ACSOL knows SORNA is going to pass (which puts 288 a there regardless) and CP back on 1 and 2, to save 288 C’s.
I am completely speechless right now and so hurt.

@Jab and @ Steve. I agree. 17b’s my current situation, should have been dealt with first. I also just finished reading the lawsuit and I was surprised at how acsol kinda dismantled the term violent sex offenders and used 288’ers as their prose. I was thrown off guard a little too by the words. I feel bad for you guys, especially after reading some offenses are super close in age and not stranger danger. I also see your point that there are situations that even a 288.c.1 is worse off even though sentencing laws might slightly differ. This more than likely will get the hogs off their at home chairs and mad rush for new bills to hang those 288’ers.
It’s too bad acsol could not mediate this without filing a lawsuit. All I can say is acsol must have gotten a huge donation to protect one class of offenders and bait out the others. Now, what about the 17b’s? What’s next with that.

Mike, JAB and others – I understand that you have concerns about the lawsuit and the attention we are calling to those convicted of PC 288(a). Our message, of course, is that those convicted of PC 288(c) should be assigned to Tier 2 like those convicted of PC 288(a). There are certain things we cannot and will not discuss on a public website or in a recorded monthly meeting regarding the strategy behind this lawsuit. Please be patient and know that we are fully aware of what we are doing and believe we are on a path to success. As stated in the article, there are more lawsuits to be filed.

Thank you Janice I figured as
much but nice to hear it.

Experience is that will not be the effect.

In the past, the thing treated as lesser was set to be worse to even the scales.

@ JAB, I believe the complaint, as difficult as it was to read, merely reiterated existing case law and the penal code. It does not make new accusations or categorizations but states law already settled. However, this is my first reading of the details of 288 and its history, so what do I know? However, I did sense some intriguing and broad possibilities between the lines. Janice knows Sacramento probably better than any lawyers practicing in other cities.

@Ditto. Yes, it did reiterate current case law, but at what expense? Hanging over 40K registrants who are now being likened to a Jerry Sandusky, violent felony crime? No, I don’t agree sorry. I do agree that something had to be done with the misdemeanors being on Tier 3. That is ridiculous and in my opinion, someone was real dumb when doing that. I honestly think it was an overstep. LG-Fletcher and LE was after CP not 288c’s. And I disagree, this did “categorize” the term violent with the PC288 a, which many were not aware of. The background of 288 is that it was never a Violent felony. When my spouse pled no contest in 1990, it was a serious felony. Now somebody changes the format of what a violent felony is and adds 288 a to this format, punishing those long done serving their probation/time? Not cool. I agree, Janice is one of the best lawyers in Sac, sadly though, Janice does not run the capital. Lawmakers are in need of repairing themselves after Trump, we got the Jones bill now in CA, we got operation SO canceled, blaming Joe Biden, when it was ICE, so lawmakers will be on their yearly path of creating fear and writing new bills to sink SO! This lawsuit, the way it was written, can crush the dreams of 40k registrants, and at what cost? By labeling them violent felons, with young victims? No, that was horribly wrong. Saying a 288 C is not severe compared to a 288 a? I bet we can find 1,000’s of PC cases of 288 a that were consensual, close to the age of 14, and within 4 years the age of the victim versus how many 288 C’s who were 20 to 30 years older than the victim. I am not gonna play the pit each other against one another PC game, but each case has a certain set of circumstances. And this is what hurts the most about the lawsuit’s verbiage, it sounds like every PC 288 a is a violent and sick predator, that is lingering on Tier 2 and needs to be switched with to a Tier 3, to allow 288 C on Tier 2. Whoever wrote the language in the lawsuit did exactly what society has done to RSO’s, all 288 a’s were grouped together as one Big Violent sex offender. I feel blindsided as ACSOL never consulted with the us on their plans and intentions on throwing PC 288 a under the bus. We have given a lot of time, money, and assistance to ACSOL over the years and I guess it wasn’t good enough compared to others.
So Good luck on this lawsuit, I am more than confident it will remove 288 C from Tier 3, which it darn well should be, and I just pray the door did not get opened at destroying the lives of single 288 A past registrants, whom have created a life and who have been hanging by a thread the past 4 years, only to be dangled by your own to save a few others.

I want to possibly shed a little light in regards to your spouses case. There is a special exemption for those who were under 21 at the time of their offense. I believe your spouse would be able to file after 10 years instead of 20 because of his age. Please don’t lose hope in the process. ACSOL is attempting to get justice for all.

@ Pursuit, thank you for the information. I was aware of that, but in my spouse’s situation, we have over 30 plus years so we are good to go on that! I appreciate that. It is hard not to lose hope when your spouse’s PC is referenced to that of a Violent Predator with young victims (unless it was with force) That is my problem there, as all 70’s, 80’s, and 90’s PC 288 a’s were not Violent felonies! I cannot comment on future charges, but I assume the fear morons added the PC 288 a to violent felonies under the 667.5 codes, to make the term “child molestation” stick better. We all know how they love to use the world CM to make those convicted look like sick monsters. Been there, done that. Most of the 90’s cases I was told from my mother in law who is a retired judge and former sex crimes prosecutor, were simple romeo type cases that got caught up in the newly 288 a lingo. As many of us has stated, the 288 a is not a one size fits all category. And I always felt ACSOL stood behind this notion. But after reading the lawsuit language, I was shocked to read the terms and relations being compared to a 288 a and 288 C. But be careful folks, all the 288 C felonies, might one day be added against your knowledge to the growing term of what a “violent” felony is and you will done for life as well.

Here is one amendment to PC 667.5(c) in 2000:

(c) For the purpose of this section, “violent felony” means any of the following: (old version)

(c) For the purpose of this section, “violent felony” shall mean any of the following: (as of 2000 forward)

Small details and legal semantics. I suspect failed law enforcement litigation regarding what is “violent” brought on this change in the wording.

It appears PC667.5 and PC1192.7 are laws that were written to prohibit plea bargaining and add sentence enhancements for recidivism. They are strictly prospective when amended. They cannot reach back retroactively such as our “civil” registration laws.

I’m positive thousands of registrants with old convictions/dismissals etc. have been lost in the code and all the amendments with respect to being “serious” or “violent”. Many cases were never proven to be designated that way.

Hi CJ. Thank you for that information. But the problem with the term violent felony being added in my opinion, is those going forward. If 2000 is the year they added 288 a to violent felonies list ( I have no idea) then those in the past should not be labeled part of that. My spouse did not even get arrested, had no bail (violent felony charges all have large bail, if any) and you do not get probation with a violent sex felony conviction. We all know what a violent felony is, murder, kidnapping etc. Those are horrible charges, so the changes to the language by adding a 288 a to this group mind boggles me. And from what I have heard, is DA’s got better results by adding a horrible language around 288 a and making sure it sticks in the minds of others as a Violent child molestation charge.
The only issue I have now is how the lawsuit labeled all 288 A’s as violent felonies.
But thank you again for that information.

JAB:

I understand why you’re upset.

Here’s the deal. Court documents will show if it was deemed serious or violent. It doesn’t automatically happen.

My case docket in 1996 shows only ALLEGATIONS of pc 1192.7.

Sounds like yours is neither serious or violent. Check the court records.

No way 288(a) bumps up. That would equate to a 10,000/10,000/80 000 tier breakdown.

@ JAB:. You wrote “But be careful folks, all the 288 C felonies, might one day be added against your knowledge to the growing term of what a “violent” felony is and you will done for life as well.” In Florida, any and all physical contact is considered “violent”. So a 288c is already, by law, a violent felony there. Yes, bizarre and truly Florida! 🙄

No, actually, I suspect this will create a larger wrong.

Thanks for nothing

I concur Mike S. The priority I have is to address how 17b will be handled and PC 1203.4. This can have a dramatic affect on a multitude of individuals. Can a guy who went to prison be a tier 2 and a guy with a 17b/expunged misdemeanor be a tier 3??

I had a 288 with probation and did 3 months furlough, no jail, I was 19 and my girlfriend was 13 almost 14. I applied for internet exclusion and got that. I am 55 now, married to my wife/victim for almost 40 years, 4 kids and no issues. Now I read that my case is severe and it will more than likely be a 3 now!!! I am now a violent sex offender? How so. I did no jail time, excluded from hit-list. So the 79 year plaintiff is a better man? Thank you guys who ever felt this route was a good one.

@ Johnnie B.: You were very fortunate. My “victim” was one year below the State’s age of consent and, for that, I spent 4+ years in State prison.

🥳 Thank you, Janice & ACSOL!! 👏👏👏

Janice and team – Thanks so much for all you do. I truly hope that the lawsuit bears fruit. I know there are a number of you that are extremely concerned as it relates to 288A, but trust Janice she’s done wonderful work in the past and I don’t think the DOJ wants to get into a game of trying to reassign various PC codes unless they are legally obligated to do so

Hey Mr. D,

I have a 311.11 and waiting on getting everything removed this year. Janice and team has done great work but I can see the concern now from the others after reading this.
I don’t agree with you on your doj comment Mr. D. They are spineless animals there and would love those convicted of pc section 288 a on tier 3. I think I had read many 288 a do not have a tier and are to tbd? So that is an easy fix for them, keep them in the to be determined tier, then put em in 3.

My prediction is after the lawsuit is updated, as this is stupid i agree putting low tier 1 level crimes on tier 3, they are going to throw section penal code 288 a on tier 3. Why? Sorry Acsol, but I think you
opened the can of beer by branding the 288 pc as a violent worse of the worse felony.

I bet good ole Ca lawmakers are going to package deal that all violent sex felonies are a tier 3. I feel bad for you folks.

I guess you win some and lose sum. Hang in there guys.

Best,
Bobby

Janice, thank you for filing this lawsuit! I read the entire complaint (PDF), and each and every word felt like vindication. My situation is almost identical to that of the plaintiff’s. Same PC code, same 17(b), etc.
I pray for the success of this lawsuit and for relief. Thank you and all at ACSOL for everything you do!!!

When is the lawsuit to move internet stings (no contact, no victim) to a lower tier?

288a – the person can claim they thought the victim was older (bad judgement)
288c – the person knew the victim was underage (bad behavior)

This is the battle.

And good old 647.6, the weird one where a phantom can accuse a person they never knew of a touch offense that never happened. It’s one that David Tulcan played out in 2017 against someone who went to look for their ill mother at a restaurant, can’t remember which. Funny, the accused probably didn’t even see who this accuser was, sort of like accidentally bumping into someone you never see again.

“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)).”

I could not find any reference to PC 311.11 in the lawsuit.

Need to take a deep breath. Janice stated that the 311.11(a) concerns would be addressed in a future lawsuit. My take is that they don’t want to throw too much into a single suit, since the opposition could get snotty and oppose everything. One fight at a time. Evidently all those that have seen the lack of acknowledgment of the 17(b) by CASCOMB feel that this is a fix that will happen.

I wonder…

ACSOL takes the easiest hanging fruit to identify the tiered registry made a grave mistake due to equal protections constitutionality. If they can win that one first, then that opens the flood gates that there could be more inequality in the tiered registry. Remember, there were more changes that happened after the tiered registry was first approved.

This reminds me of lawyers who can prove if the opposing lawyers doctored just one piece of information, then the whole case gets thrown out because who knows what other facts were compromised. Welp, if Janice and company can easily show constitutional folly with this first suit, then they can always refer to this suit in future cases regarding the construction of the tiered registry.

I dunno if it’s possible to sue the state if/when ACSOL wins their case past the legal petitioning date due to “delayed justice is injustice”, kinda like wrongful imprisonment.

Thank you ACSOL!!! 🙏

we are grateful for having you in our lives I don’t see many people wanting to stand up for all of us like you do.

We are all effected by this whole registry and our families are suffering with us one day we are up and the next day we are down. But , we need to stay the course and have faith in the ones who have faith in us who are there to help us and frankly Janice and Chance are in the fire for us everyday and rely only on donations for doing so, that tells me they are truly in the fight for us I would never believe that they would ever sacrifice one group over another. they never have and won’t start now. .
We should remember we are all in this together. They don’t have to do this but choose too ..

Thank you again ACSOL for this stepping stone. Please donate !!! Even if one gets off that is success. Stay focused on what is truth.

We pray all of us one day will get off and to the ones that do congratulations but don’t forget to still fight for the ones that are still here fighting. ❤️🙏

Back in 2017 when SB384 was passed ACSOL seemed unhappy about it like they couldn’t sale hopeless people a dream any more if you think about it 70% of sex offenders going free and outhers with a possible off ramp that literally makes ACSOL whole movement pointless so I see why their rocking the boat so soon to protect their cash cow hopeless sex offenders and All this time I thought the government was the enemy

@Zap: I need to respectfully disagree with your comment especially the part “…that literally makes ACSOL whole movement pointless so I see why their rocking the boat so soon to protect their cash cow hopeless sex offenders…”.

Janice, the Executive Director, has said numerous times that ACSOL will continue until the registry is abolished. She has said it in those words during recorded meetings. Our suffering is not a cash cow to ACSOL or any of its directors or participants. She has also pledged in the meantime to continue to fight for an offramp for “ALL” registrants.

Right now they are using their limited resources to tackle the most obvious and blatant problems with the Tiered Registry law which are the equal protection constitutional violations. It is completely ludicrous to place misdemeanors onto Tier 3. Who the hell does that??? Think about it, if they can get away with that, then they can probably do just about anything else to us. A lot of the stupidity in this law was crammed in at the last minute by some nefarious lawmakers who, if they had their way, would love to keep lifetime registration for ALL registrants. They did their stupid maneuvers, and now it’s going to blow up in their faces. And, when it does, they will lose what little credibility they had in Sacramento and maybe even among their constituents. That way the next time they try to pull their shit during future hearings for future legislation, we can hopefully shut them down!

Please don’t lose faith in Janice and ACSOL. They have your back and all of our backs.

Agreed.

People don’t realize how ACSOL isn’t really funded well enough to engage in so many lawsuits/cases. The people on here are probably its highest group of income. Yet, the organization is still growing, adding many scholars, advocates, and potential lawyers to create a stronger foundation. Most of the organization probably joined in charity to help.

ACSOL started because one person decided to stand up for a registrant, Janice decided to stand up for Frank. Her advocacy grew to create CARSOL. Then it became Janice and Chance. Afterward, it evolved into ACSOL, so that it can be involved in registration policies across the nation, which includes Janice being granted the ability to be a lawyer at the Federal Supreme Court level.

While the tiered registry doesn’t abolish, it’s a significant step from simply a lifetime term. The tiered registry actually creates a lot of problems for the state as it now is recognizing there are different levels to offenses, which includes does 17B classify a case as non-violent. The current mistakes on tiered classification identifies how the legislation is not based upon science, but that’s a notion too far advanced to notice. So ACSOL is chipping away.

The registry is very convoluted with many entanglements due to its recent classification that it is a statutory scheme and not a punitive one. It has ballooned even at it’s birth of statutory classification in 2003. CA was one of four states that classified any sexual offense as a lifetime term. Now, we’re a tiered system, which still has a lifetime term.

Dr. Karl Hanson’s research work also is being promoted more and more to where the max supervision of registrants is 17 years. That may reduce any lifetime term to 17 years max as a tier 3.

It’s difficult to change the perception that a monster is actually a person. It’s going to take some time. ACSOL isn’t a massive legal firm like the ACLU where it does receive mass funding constantly. The ACLU doesn’t fight for registrant civil rights like ACSOL does because who wants to defend monsters? That’s a terrible look. Yet, Janice saw person in Frank, not a monster. And now we’re here with ACSOL.

So donate what you can, if you can, to ACSOL. They are our voice when we cannot speak, cannot stand, or cannot crawl out of bed.

Well… I’m certain there are more than few who have been registered for more than 20 years.

I was first registered before there was a Megan’s Law web site.
I was told “it’s just a piece of paper for law enforcement”.
No one else see’s it. Not the case anymore.

In the intervening 28 years, it’s become more and more of a “yellow star”, and even when there have been few direct confrontations, the absolute terror has at times been more than a little debilitating. Those few confrontations, have been… Educational. In one instance, I was assaulted in a recovery meeting with a knife. My assailant walked away with a misdemeanor charge. As we all know, most societal safety nets are denied us by law. Elder housing? Forget it. Protection by law enforcement? See above. I’ve also watched others who had signed contracts to not register be forced to register.

The new law, and the classification I received in January, offered me hope of escaping that. This action says that it’s unfair… Unfair that I have the opportunity to petition this summer.

In 2014 there was an appellate decision that offered me a thin hope. By the time the attorney I’d engaged finished screwing up the the court hearing, the door was closed tight by the legislature in response to the appellate decision and the action of the state supreme court.

I see this action as a replay of my 2014 experience, triggered by ACSOLs intention to perfect the law and I think thousands of us will pay for this… But they will have tried for perfect.

Using the terms “cash cow” is laughable and shows how little thought you put into your comment.
Janice and her team are doing what they can in the face of immense opposition and are getting very little in terms of donations comparatively to how many they are trying to represent.
That being said, I need to set up my monthly donations.
It’s unfortunate that the Paypal portal says “Sex Offender” for their site but it seams like this cannot be altered.
I hope everyone donates, ACSOL needs all the help they can get.

@Zap your just plain wrong ACSOL has helped us , its sad that RC’s just happen to be the poorest as well as the hardest to help , don’t forget that the LE engine has the largest engine to in this race , so in light of all us broke dick folks we could ask for no better org to have our backs , hey next chunk of change we get don’t forget to send some to ACSOL , even if its a book of stamps , when I was in prison over 30 years ago a book of stamps was like gold , one stamp was a blessing it can make someones day in a very dark and dangerous place , so seemingly small things can change things , you can plainly see we are still being punished so this is the time to rally and get behind the best shot on the table in this pool game , we can at least chock the stick for Janice , Levl 111 forever ! we all living it , we need hope my friend to win

My Say – I believe that most people regret their actions and don’t think they never harmed anyone. You said you deserved your prison term, and I am sure most feel the same. BUT, we are talking about the punishment AFTER they completed their prison sentence. I think we can all agree that this goes beyond punishment. Like every other offender, they have the right to do their time and then move on. On another note, alcohol is promoted everywhere, and this leads to people driving drunk and killing innocent people, to include kids. Yet, they don’t treat the people with DUI like they do SOs and say: You drank, so you are promoting more alcohol production, and hence more accidents waiting to happen, killing (a bigger harm than viewing) innocent people”. Just sayin…

Zap. We have been up and down like a yo-yo in Michigan over this crap lately. Our Gov. is a coward and won’t budge knowing these laws are punitive and punish us severely. Oh well, right. Organizations need money and they will slay for it. I follow Acsol from the Michigan references and I belong to NARSOL. Each requires a lot of cash to keep afloat. I am not sure if that is what is happening here but maybe a big donor came in and that is why these labels of violent felony are being thrown around. I am curious how many registrants are affected by the tier change with a 288 1 c conviction compared to 288a? I think I read that over 50,000 are 288? That is a lot of people to mess with. Not sure why, but then again, the way they operate in Michigan, maybe ca is the same too. It is a numbers game. Shove some here to keep everyone happy, then shove a little more there. Money speaks, lives do not. Best of luck to you in Ca. Sounds like 50 000 of you are going to need it.
Peter Jones

@ Peter:

Yes, it is a numbers game. Based on the current numbers I see no way they bump 288(a) up. There are too many, virtually half of this PC290 monster. Trust in our leadership in the cause. You can’t have 80,000 in tier III. Won’t happen.

@ JAB:

I feel for ya but don’t think your spouse’s situation is synonymous with the equal protection 288(c) complaint. That just shows tier III being arbitrary and irrational. Based on your facts your spouse is neither deemed violent or serious. If it’s serious like you say it must state it in his court documentation as proven by the prosecution. Serious, or deemed within PC1192.7(c) is code to eliminate plea bargains and count it as a strike. This can’t be assumed. It must be proven beyond doubt. Same goes with violent.

Where the tiering language and process goes off the track is they placed codes that were found by the court of record neither serious or violent all over the place. Many are in tier III. Think about that. Lorena and her cronies must have been drunk when they patched this garbage together.

The whole Tiered Registry was supposed to be for making it smaller as it has become unmanageable, and too many new offenses were added. That is why the registry should not exist at all. Just hearing that word makes me cringe. Who are these people that think they can punish people decades after their release from Prison or Jail? Yes, I know, they don’t consider it punishment, but why then are 10s of thousands of people stressed out? If it were just regulatory, we could relax. It is punishment and there is absolutely no arguing about it. Now, they are adding all these offenses to Tier III and will go back to exactly what it is now….Unmanageable!! They have learned nothing! What a bunch of incompetent and uneducated people! So fed up!

@Some one who cares , you got it right ! you knew this was going to be the case in this Tiered registry , and a few others got the whole trick bag behind the tier system , wait tell everyone sees that they will up the ante just like they have with prole over the years , already more rules on the registry than prole as it is , we can get years for not going by one rule , but hey its not punishment Right ? you know if we don’t want to tag our car we can sell it , among many other things you can opt out of , but we cant opt out of anything except life to get off the registry no matter how much time we did or how long ago , yep don’t even care what anyone says this IS punishment after the fact

Politicians need an enemy to prop them up. No one really cares about improving policies. Almost everybody drinks alcohol. More and more states approve the legal use of marijuana. Sex offenders are the easiest targets because there is no push back. There is an alcohol industry. There are now marijuana industries.

There really is no road to redemption here. Tis a far cry from the theme, “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.” – John 8:1-11.

Everyone else is allowed to make mistakes and redeem themselves, unless you’re categorized as a sex offender. This allows the trampling of civil rights, which Janice and ACSOL have been winning back little by little.

The registry is very odd. In CA, it was used to identify gangsters, but I think that was stopped and deemed illegal. Yet, it continued for sex offenders. Then it changed from punishment to a statutory scheme because in-person reporting was identified as a disability, but today it is not despite compelling a free person to report to the local police department under penalty of law.

It is punishment when compared to probation/parole. You must report to the local agency, you do have restrictions (including employment), you must report your movement, and compliance checks are administered even though it is not directly written into PC 290 law. Again, this is the loss of civil rights that no one has fought against before ACSOL when PC 290 revised itself in the late 1990s/early 2000s.

Someone who cares, I feel your frustration. I have been a registrant for over 20 years and after completing two college degrees, was later arrested for ‘failure to register.’ No one ever considers the ‘ grey areas,’ but only the black an white. I lived with my sister at the time. My daughter and her mom lived on the same street. My sister was not always the easiest to live with and so I would leave and go to my daughter’s house. A new tenant moved into the building and conducted an internet search and found me in the building; the tenant called the owner and the owner threatened to evict my sister if were to remain on the premises. Due to fear, my sister claimed that I no longer lived there. For whatever reason, the owner called the police; a detective showed up and had my sister repeat her claim. I was called and informed of all that had taken place. Since the station was down the street, I went and ask to speak with the detective. Consequently, I was arrested for -according to them – failing to register. I had never moved, my belongings and mail were at the address but I did spend a significant amount of time at my daughter’s place. I was told by the detective that if I had been on the lease, there would not have been an arrest and that without being on the lease, it would be my word against my sisters.

Just donated to the cause and if you give $100 you get a signed copy of Janice’s book.

I also donated, but, sadly, not enough to warrant a signed book copy. ha!

Represent us well, ACSOL!

COR Input: I filed a COR around June of last year. I was originally assigned a Dec Court date and later February. I just attended and I was then informed (The DA wasn’t prepared again) that the DA hadn’t done a background check (called my references/probably ran me). 1997 PC 243.4A/17B/expunged/summary. It appears the company who I hired specializes in 17B, expungements and COR. My counsel stated the DA could require a copy of my taxes, static 99, home visit and the list goes on and on. I was informed (I get the impression the company I use goes to this court and DA for a reason). My counselor informed me that we would re-schedule for April something and I didn’t have to come? I was kind of shocked by this? My counsel stated the DA was on board and that unless he finds (no joke) some dead bodies, he was on board at a 90-95 Percent? Advantage? Can’t ask me questions? Just curious. Furthermore, I studied the COR packet from the LA County Courts and it states the Detective (they have one come in once a week to make these calls) was prohibited to sharing the details of my case and they where only performing a background check per my request. 1. Advantage or Disadvantage of attending the hearing? The DA informed my counsel I didn’t have to come back? 2. My counsel also asked why I wasn’t just coming after the new Tier Law in July? Comments? Views?

wtf a 1997 crime that’s been 17b-ed and expunged still needs all that to be granted the ability to get off the registry? I hope the Tiered Registry Law is a lot better than that, especially considering LA County is considered the most “liberal” county. Are they seriously going to Static 99 you for an over 20 year old crime? The Static 99 is apparently only valid from two years to 10 years (depending on who you ask).

As for tax returns, wtf does that have to do with being granted the relief from having to register? So many registrants are working menial jobs, unemployed, or retired. Is there an unspoken income threshold from being able to get off the registry?

“Static risk assessments estimate the likelihood of recidivism at the time of release and we expect they would be valid for approximately two years.” – Static-99R Coding Rules, page 13.

@TMZ – If you were my client, I would recommend that you appear at your April hearing because the judge may want to ask you a question.

@janice you are correct . Although I was granted my COR in 2014 out of LA county downtown court house the judge did ask me two questions those two questions were (1) do you work sir and what do you do , (2) are you a danger to society as what the district attorney is claiming . I responded , I do work sir as a matter of fact I’m a licensed California contractor and I’m not a danger to society,sir. I was stoked when the judge stated “ I didn’t think you were.” Minutes later the judge granted my COR . Being my case was a 1993 jury conviction , the particulars pre COR was not as strict as some I read on the blog where background checks, references checks , and possible mental status checks the DA will possibly require Before proceeding with the COR case. I will add I did have four character reference letter written by people I know but those people were never contacted .

@TMZ:

“My counsel also asked why I wasn’t just coming after the new Tier Law in July?”

I hate to say this, but if your attorney is asking you this question, then he/she may not be the right kind of attorney to deal with registry issues. From everything I have learned, you will want to do ANYTHING you possibly can prior to petitioning for removal to “mitigate” your case and to improve your standing in the community. In my opinion, getting a COR would be a huge benefit to you before petitioning because it should help to demonstrate that you’re not a risk to the community. So, tell that lawyer that you’re going for the COR to help increase the chances of winning the petition after July. Then say, “DUH!” under your breath!

Just my 2 cents.

@TMZ you are stressing out big time . It sounds like you need a different attorney big time . Shoot, by the time you have a hearing you’ll be admitted in the hospital with severe stomach problems , relax . Read my story on my experience getting my COR from the LA County court house . My presiding judge was probably the best Hispanic judge known to LAcounty and finds favor in people who produce change . Believe me , this judge knows the character of people coming before him . I was told this judge could smell BS from a mile away . Show up bring support ( wife , daughters/sons whoever) if you are before him come your turn, if you are deserving of the COR , this judge will know it very quickly . My advice to you , dress to kill look good and be professional . It’s all about you what you’ve done meanwhile to deserve this COR . To be honest , I made it totally easy for my attorney to argue for my COR because the change in me the judge saw that . I felt that because the way he spoke to me and treated me throughout the hearing (that lasted 15-20 mins) was not like that of a criminal , but a person .

Strange: my court dates have been delayed twice. The DA contacted (they work with him regularly) my counsel that morning and informed them they still hadn’t performed a background check and reference check? Later, my counsel informed me the DA could request a psych evaluation, static 99 (I’m like 2), request tax returns and make my life miserable. She informed me the DA stated that I didn’t need to attend the next hearing and unless (her exact words) they found dead bodies in my background check, he was 95% on board? Then, she mentioned or asked me if I was aware (I’m born in February) of the new law in July? Do you just want to come back in July? I was caught off guard by this. The DA stated he said I didn’t have to come back in April snd if I wanted, just come back in July? Otherwise, he would do a background check and call a few references and unless they found a dead body, he was fine supporting my petition (these conversations took place in the hallway and I never saw the Judge (Latino/Democrat/liberal). I mentioned, what if the Judge has a question? So, here is the magic question? Is it better to attend and possibly be on the spot or is it better to not go? My counsel informed me the DA stated my presence wasn’t required? (I never spoke to him/I just saw him walk by). I later contacted the owner (Fresh Start Law Center -David Huffman) and he concurred. If John Doe (1st name basis) doesn’t need your presence, then I wouldn’t go. He keeps saying they are on board and I have a 95% chance of success? Better to be present and put on the spot or the DA states we don’t require the defendants presence? ((3) 261, (2) 211, (1) PC 243.4a original charges, all charges dismissed, (1) PC 243.4a/17b/expunged/summary probation- no arrests prior/after. Go or not go.

Personally, I would attend and keep trying to get the COR. You cannot be sure you’re eligible for relief under the tiered monstrosity. DOJ has pulled the rug out from under quite a few of us with their “TBD” and heavy-handed placement of non-violent, non-serious, reduced and expunged offenses into tier 3.

And to be honest, if I hear ANY DA say, “Hey, why don’t ya just wait for July and apply under the new law,” I would ABSOLUTELY make sure I was there to fight for that COR. At least with the COR, they have to prove you’re a risk. Under the tiered registry, YOU have to prove you’re NOT.

@TMZ
Go.
If the DA has any last minute objections, your presence alone will likely tip it in your favor. When my husband obtained his 17b , the over zealous DA objected, the judge asked my husband a couple of simple questions which he answered confidently and respectfully. The judge granted relief.
If the DA indicated you don’t really need to be present, it means the DA doesn’t want you to be present.
Stand up and show up. You’ve earned this.
I hope you get your COR.

Simple fix and a major issue, individual risk assessment law suit. Must have individual risk assessments in CA. The CA SC will most likely agree, look at how they acted in the internet and the residency restrictions cases. I think it is a win but no one will challenge it. I will soon if no one else does, just warning people I will act. Wish a credible attorney would act but if not I will in the near future. Plus not only a substantive due process issue with the no individual risk assessments, but also a major privacy issue in the state as the state constitution declares privacy as an inalienable right.

COR: I expect my attorney to defend me with the highest standard. I will contact my attorney prior to the court date, ask how is the DA and request he reach out to the DA prior. My attorney stated the DA was 95% sure he would support my request unless something came back on the background check. I applied (after 17b) for an expungement in LA years ago and got my court date confused. I was representing myself. The Judge granted my request. I’ll cover all basis. 1. I have an attorney representing me. What if they are shielding me from questions? And, why would a DA say he was on board and inform my counsel I didn’t need to come back? I have 1 month

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.

The fix is to vote out the knobheads that built this swamp of a “justice system”. And then vote out the next knobheads who are too weak to do what’s right.

And then put on a suit and get yourself on the ballot.

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

Janice/Chance – are there any updates on the lawsuit that you filed last month regarding 288c? Was curious if the DOJ had responded at all or if there were any updates that you could provide at this time. Thank you.

@Mr. D – Today I met and conferred with an attorney from the Office of the Attorney General. She said that they will file a demurrer (similar to motion to dismiss) arguing that the legislature had a “rational basis” for choosing to assign everyone convicted of PC 288 (c) to Tier 3. I told her, of course, that we disagree. The next step in the process is for them to request a hearing which will probably take place in the next 2 to 3 months. After the hearing, the judge will decide whether or not the case will go forward.

@Janice – hi Janice and thanks so much for the quick feedback. While I can see them trying to make an argument of being rational basis as a Felony I don’t see in any shape or form how they conclude that a misdemeanor should be assigned to tier 3. Thanks so much for everything that you do!

@Robert Brandy: I took a look at that link and unless you’re a Phildelphia lawyer, it’s hard to make heads or tails of it.
From what I can understand, however, it looks like 288(a) is Tier 3. Do I read this wrong?

SB384 Public notification policy:Not many attributes carried over
from SB421(the legislation hoped to be attained)thou one unique quality remained-public disclosure was reflective-based on,the
tier one was assigned to.A constant in the bill from it’s original draft.
I\we could reference the bill before,during and after it was signed
into law by our then Governor Jerry Brown,and in every iteration
the language of public disclosure to tier placement was parallel.
It remained such,dormant perhaps,until January 1st 2021.
This is not the case today.This distinct part of the law has been
penciled out.No,288(a) is tier 2 but full address nonetheless.
This zip code only can be a tier 3 now.This altered approach to
the law coupled with negation of tier status given to the public
allows implementation that will closely mirror the law that preceded it.
On a finer tone,We received Mrs. Bellucci’s new book:four impressions
stand out-courage,clarity,understanding and compassion.
We are honored and thankful.She is the Joan of Arc for those
who’s rights are considered less equal.

As it relates to public disclosure on the newly implemented SB 384 bill, and I know exclusions are greatly reduced and I believe only available to those where you’re the victim was related to you. It is not offense based.

Starting in January of next year many people who have been excluded are unfortunately going to be added to the public website unless again their victim was related to them.

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

@ Robert Brandy – I think you’re getting too caught up in in tiers and PC codes. The bottom line is that starting next year that internet exclusions will be solely awarded to those that are related to the victim. Tier level and PC code are irrelevant to this. Tier 3 assigned folks will still be excluded from the internet if their conviction fits this description.

I find it odd that no one’s tier assignment isn’t there. This paints all registrants at the most hideous form of a monster. By having tiers shared, then it’s possible the public gets re-educated that being on the registry doesn’t mean you’re the extreme like the media and government is bandying about. Plus, it might give the public some info such as the ratio of tier 1s to tier 2s to tier 3s, again, part of the re-education.

But I do get why the government doesn’t want to share tier levels… it’s because they probably want to protect tier 3s. This is similar to identifying someone who contracted COVID, but not saying who it was that contracted COVID (remember all those articles when COVID first started?). People need to stay vigilant on being COVID safe and not to disenfranchise a person or family to live normally.

Yet, if this is the case, then isn’t having a registry run contrary to trying to protect people? It’s very duplicitous to create tiers and not share those tiers because it means every registrant is the same, like it was before the tiered registry. Sharing the registry and not sharing the tiers logically run in opposite directions because the government is trying to expose and hide things simultaneously for their one benefit.

On a tangent, a person can probably sue the state for libel or slander if anyone calls a registrant a monster if they’re a tier 1.

Thank you Mr.D

288(c) misdemeanor charge \conviction(not a wobbler
subsequently reduced) in municipal court.With an
accompanying pc1203.4 CA. dismissal .Green light
for a COR but not if was a reduction,interesting…
Will let this community know if\when tier is assigned.
Ty r -Member of the family.

Last edited 2 months ago by Robert Brandy

@Robert Brandy – Did you mean to say you’re waiting to try and get a COR? 288C is not eligible for a COR although I suppose it’s possible that some judge could grant it because technically it’s not eligible for a 1203.4 but the number of us have managed to get that as well. As a relates to your tier letter is that because you’re currently rated TBD or is it because you have not received your letter yet?

Mr. D
Any misdemeanor within 290 that has been dismissed
through PC 1203.4 can apply for a CA COR.
Including 288(c):However,it must be a misdemeanor
charge/conviction.
Any felony conviction of 288 PC cannot apply.
PC 17(b) reductions are not honored for 288’s.
Although reduced,they still consider it a felony
conviction for 290 relieve.
Not considered retroactive-PC 17(b)(e)
R

Mr .D
No tier assignment yet.

Mr .D
Maybe I should clarify…
Penal Code 4852 (Certificate of Rehabilitation)these codes are ineligible Pen. Code §§ 288a (c),286(c), 288,288.5, or 289(j).These are all felony crimes,except one wobbler-
288(c)1 or 2.When charged as a misdemeanor
and dismissed pursuant to PC1203.4 is eligible
to apply for a COR.There is high court law on
not barring a misdemeanor sex offense from a way
off the registry.To remedy this long standing
privilege, California legislators removed
288 s from there right to obtain a dismissal.
Thus closing the door on 288(c) who would
otherwise be in good standing to rehabilitate
out of 290.

I wanted to remark on a comment we made the
other day on PC 17(b) and 288 s.It was stated
that PC17(b)s were not honored for PC 288.
Well,this is general disposition for most registrants
and may not be completely set in stone.
It’s easier to get a persons gun rights restored
through a reduction of penal code 17(b) than
it is to get relieve from the registry.Serious business
a foot with more neutering away of constitutional
protections; PC17(b) being no exception to this
trend from lawmakers.Also stated in the earlier
post,felony 288s could not apply for a CA.
COR.Well,again,a general statement that would
apply;However,attempted 288 felony can apply for
a CA. COR.Basically,the theme here is don’t
give up.Do not let anyone tell you not to try.
Irrespective of whether relieve is obtained or
not,the fact is a conviction under 288 still holds
promise for redemption.If we continue to fight
alongside our advocates and members of the
general public who see the fallacious rhetoric,
confirmation bias and intellectually dishonest
behavior from the legislators as culpable targets
for reform,we are destined for safer grounds
and freer lands once more.R

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!

Your family memeber needs to contact DOJ and check on that. 311.11a misdemeanor should be tier 1, not tier 3. A friend had the same thing and he was given tier 1. Only felony 311.11a is tier 3.

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 ?

You can try to obtain a 1203.4, a number of folks on here have reported successfully obtaining one – its a crapshoot as technically it’s not eligible. Hopefully Janice’s suit will bear fruit later this summer

Yes, I did have a 17b /1203.4 Hearing after probation term completed and Judge granted a reduction of Felony 288(c)1 to a Misdemeanor back in 2007. My case was in 2001 which a fabricate charge was added to a police report by an officer who lied repeatedly at trial, claimed that when I broke up a fight between two 14 year old girls and thought I was doing a good citizen thing by pulling off the bigger and stronger girl who was beating the weaker girl so badly that it looked as if the stronger girl was going to actually kill her with non stop blows to the head. I pulled the strong girl off. Strong girl told police that the only reason she stopped beating weak girl was because some “man” pulled her off. That’s what strong girl told police. Officer Corrupt Cop decided to write a “dramatic report “ and wrote that the “man” who pulled off the big girl, grabbed her breasts with one hand when pulling her off and breaking up the fight. Cop testified at trial saying the same thing , a total false, fabricated lie. Public Defender did no investigation nor did DA, regarding an alleged sexual battery on Strong Girl, long story short, I was convicted for 243.4d Sexual Battery (Misdemeanor) and Felony 288(c) 1 Lewd and lascivious Acts on a minor child 14 or 15 years old. Reduced to a misdemeanor pursuant to Ca PC 17(b) .
Wrongful Conviction was in 2001, now finding out that 288(c) 1 will be a Tier 3. So… that’s where I stand at the moment. Thanks for reply, and just thought I’d elaborate and tell a little about my case for others to read. Final comment goes to JANICE/Chance … THANK YOU for everything you do for all of us. You give many of us hope. I’m not going to give up .

@Mr. G – Have you went in to your local police department and gotten your tier letter? And if not, why have you not done this? Also were you granted your 1203.4? Sorry for all the questions but just trying to understand your situation a little bit better.

No I haven’t gotten my Tier letter yet, but next week I will go down there to get it. As far as 1203.4 my charge of PC 288(c) 1 does not qualify for 1203.4 but at that court hearing after probation the court did approve felony 288(c) 1 to be reduced to a misdemeanor. The only benefit that came out a reduction to a misdemeanor was the DOJ in charge of registry removed my zip code and address from the Megan’s Law website .

115
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
.