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)
Go Lawsuit!!!
Ok easy fix say the legislators…move them all to tier 3. Or you’re right 288 (a) is now tier 3
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.
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….
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?
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.
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??
🥳 Thank you, Janice & ACSOL!! 👏👏👏
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.
“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.
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
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
Just donated to the cause and if you give $100 you get a signed copy of Janice’s book.
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?
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.
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.