ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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


Monthly Meetings | Recordings (7/10 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

California

CA: SJ County loses $220 million because of old criminal records, legislation proposes relief in SB 731

[recordnet.com – 4/30/21]

A criminal reform bill is making its way through the California State Senate that could automatically seal criminal records after a person has completed 2 full years out of the criminal justice system.

This new bill – SB731 – proposes criminal record relief, where records are sealed after a person has served their time, completed their probation and parole time, and spent 2 years without no new convictions, offenses or charges pending.

Formerly incarcerated people are more likely to experience homelessness – and homeless individuals could have a history of incarceration that’s keeping them on the streets – “so the best way to help people is with a clean start – again – with some exceptions,” the senator added.

Anyone who is classified as a sex offender and is required to register as a sex offender is not eligible for this relief,” said state Sen. María Elena Durazo, D-Los Angeles, lead author of the proposed legislation.

Read the full article

Read the bill

Find sex-related bills in your state

 

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
    1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
    2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
    3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
    4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
    5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
    6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
    7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
    8. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
    9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
    10. Please do not post in all Caps.
    11. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
    12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
    13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
    14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
    15. Please do not solicit funds
    16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
    17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
    18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 
Subscribe
Notify of
40 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Anyone who is classified as a sex offender and is required to register as a sex offender is not eligible for this relief,

Same shit, different bill.

At least (as I read it), if you are able to terminate the requirement to register, then this bill could help because it says “and is required to register”.

Given how the Department of InJustice is putting even some misdemeanor registrants onto Tier 3 (which is total bullshit), I don’t see how this bull, uh I mean bill, will help most of us.

It won’t help any of us. Yes, maybe some will be able to have their record sealed after they are no longer required to register. But that still gives the legislature 10 years to create a bill that says that no one who was ever required to register will ever be able to seal their record. No doubt, some cunning (pronounced “scummy”) lawmaker will think of it.

If your a tier3 sex offender your never going free

That isn’t entirely true. While a tier 3 can’t petition for removal from registration there are legal challenges that can be mounted to challenge the tier classification itself. Exactly what could be argued in court will differ on a case by case basis unless it’s a much larger challenge dealing with a while range of offenses at once. Just because any part of government claims something is law doesn’t mean it can’t be invalidated to some degree in the future.

Of course no one required to register is eligible because helping them move on from their convictions obviously wouldn’t be positive for society or whatever other nonsense people want to believe.

Friggin’ Facebook to comment. Grr….

I strongly suggest everyone in California email the author of this bill to request answers why registrants are excluded. Lord know every single one of us go through exactly what the bill intends to alleviate. Homelessness in particular is one of the complaints raised – are they suggesting they want registrants homeless? If nothing else, you might get acknowledgement of the registry’s punitive nature that they laughably continue to publicly deny.

How is it civil to exclude people whose re-offense rates are low and call it not punishment? The Senator needs to put up or shut up by including all criminals. Stop peeing on citizens on the Hit List to improve their lives!!

Sooooo because I looked at 6 photos of a 16 year old over a decade ago I am not entitled to any relief. So tired of this crap

I always wait for the “Sex offenders are excluded”, and sure enough, there it is again. Laughable.

Of course! You didn’t know RSO’s are worse than murderers? Even RSO’s with Misdemeanor convictions- There’s no possible way they can have Sex Offenders ‘on the loose’

We have to see what’s in the bill, but if there’s really a hard line between 290 registration and pretty much everything else, well, I can’t say sue because I’m not a board member and they have to pick and choose what has the best chance to win.

But if I was a board member, I’d look at suing that we are blatantly being treated differently under CA law. This is absolutely ridiculous. Tier 2 and 3 are decades of having private information up on the internet while there is no strong evidence after 15 years of recidivism.

They give no information about why registration should be treated as different. Outside of the blatantly obvious, maybe it’s time to force them to prove their own point as to why it’s different.

This seems like it can be sued for equality like those early releases bills that were ignored. Them singling out a whole group of people seems like it would run awful of equal protections.

afoul 👍

“IOW, we need you off the gov’t dole so you can find a job to pay taxes that we want to spend in other ways that are suspect but look good to the masses for political cred when elections are in play while moving the money already marked for you to another suspect way to pay for something else the masses don’t like.” They need your ethnicity to work for them except when they ethnic minority is a PFR, then the minority is screwed again.

This is a prime point in the individual risk assessment argument considering it is a blanket statement against PFRs as a whole and would seem to violate, IMO, the equal protection clause since all other peeps could use it to their advantage while PFRs are denied.

Remind me why this proposed Bill isn’t taking real, actual, verified recidivism rates into account?
Oh, it’s “feel good” legislation that also allows lawmakers to again spotlight and punish those convicted of sex offenses??
Oh, I see. That explains it. 😡🙄

Lookie look who is a co-sponsor of this bill. If it isn’t Senator Scott Wiener – the author of the Tiered Registry and the great champion for justice and all registrants.

This blanket discrimination must stop. How can it be upheld in court? no matter your charge, no matter how long ago, no matter your standing, people with sex crimes are all categorized the same, constanly discriminated against, constantly stigmatized, and constantly denied benefits of any and every program, law, or bill, and never any explaintion as to why…just because.

Animus, anyone? I think it would be prudent to be collecting all these “except sex offenders” laws and benefits. When every single person except once class of ex-offenders is singled out, it sure is tough to paint it as rationally related to anything. Animus, animus, animus.

Basically, you can be released with only probation on a misdemeanor offense, never commit ANY offense for the rest of your life, and you are going to be continually fucked by the justice and political system for ever. But if you assault an old lady with a hammer and then she dies, when you get out of prison you are good to go after 2 yrs.

What about hate crimes, California Democrats? You going to help a guy get back on his feet after he bashes an Asian grandfather’s head in? This country is so absolutely stupid that it’s hard to believe it’s not extremely ambitious performance art.

Believe it or not this bill is a move in the right direction if you notice the lead author of this Bill doesn’t say much about sex offenders and I’ll tell you why can you imagine if they said even sex offenders are eligible to have their records sealed people would of lost their daam minds but lowkey this Bill was actually designed for sex offenders who’ve already spent decades on the registry. Politicians know daam well the only thing that employers are looking for are sex offenders and that’s only because their a possible liability and a burden on the companies the lead author of this bill knows this that why when referring to sex offenders she was very careful how she used her words she said anybody who is classified as a sex offender and is “REQUIRED” to register as a sex offender is not eligible for release so basically once you have been relieved of you duty to register under californian SB384 your lawyer will ask the court to publicly seal your record.

Good luck ✌😬

If you’ve spent decades on the registry, then it’s pretty unlikely that your crime is going to come up in a routine background check (which typically go back 7-10 years). Yes, it comes up in registry-specific checks if you are on the registry (which weren’t a thing for most jobs when I was arrested) but if you manage to get
off the registry you’re good, unless you’re looking for a job that requires a deeper background check, and it’s unlikely this bill is going to help that. This bill is for guys 2-10 years out who have robbery or violent crime convictions looking for a job.

Think of the economic boom if PFR’s records were sealed and were able to live life without harassment. These lawmakers can’t handle the truth about PFR. Damn tyrants all of them.

Folks, we need to be active in abolitionist groups like Critical Resistance, to make sure they include RSOs. They have some influence in Democrat policymaking these days.

@Fellow ACSOL forum readers, moderators, and contributors,

Sen Durazo gives an example of the registry as punishment, IMO.

Anyone who is classified as a sex offender and is required to register as a sex offender is not eligible for this relief,” said state Sen. María Elena Durazo, D-Los Angeles, lead author of the proposed legislation.

This is an example, as I read it, of how the registry is punishment. She is more than just using publicly available information to anyone. She’s taking specific information gathered, collated, and published in a certain way (a registry) for a certain intent (notifying the people) of certain people (PFRs (who are not a protected class and can’t be discriminated against)) for a specific purpose: using it in a punishing way which puts PFRs at a disadvantage where they cannot seek relief in time of need to assist in their ability to reintegrate into society.

She’s not putting boundaries in place for age, gender, parental status, etc which could be used for specific programs, but she’s actually using the registry (in her own words) to deny relief to people, i.e. punish PFRs from seeking relief through the registry. Is there a specific reason why she chose to deny PFRs through the registry? If so, what is it? Why not chose another group of people who have erred in life but are not on a registry though still have a legal history to deny relief? Why is she specifically using the registry as her source of information to deny people?

Word for word, those who are required to register is different than those who have registered. As I read it, the intent here of those who are required to register is the same as taking the data of those who have registered because PFRs would not register unless required to and the data would not be gathered otherwise because that would defeat the purpose of the registry. The old argument of what does the law say as written and how does it get used/interpreted though when not written they way it needed to be, e.g. legislative intent.

By using the registry source, IMO, she is showing how the registry is punishment against PFRs when it is used to deny PFRs essential needs in life to move on as studies have shown are critical to reintegrating into society. I believe this could be a way in legally showing how the registry is punishment when used in such a manner.

If it is concurred this could be a way and there is a solid legal foundation to sustain this thinking, then I believe it could be used to strike down (or amend) other laws in use today (which used this same language and tactics) while preventing other from coming to be. This could, IMO, open the door to PFRs needing relief and assistance without being denied by the legislature (or maybe even Congress?).

Do others here agree, have thoughts, or have published legal opinions which are for or against this line of thought?

@TS:
How is this any different than the prohibition on those who must register for life being barred from HUD housing? The same legal argument applies, I would think. What the outcome of that argument is, IDK. I feel both situations go to animus. Reading the cases Ira Ellman referenced in his recent paper would be helpful.

That is right @AJ. Thanks for that. There is a second way the registry is punishment.

Online, the banishment specs for HUD housing applies to lifetime PFRs only. From two sources:

1) “Current HUD regulations at 24 CFR§982.553(a)(2) and §960.204(a)(4) only require that persons subject to lifetime registration requirement under a State sex offender registration program be banned from admission” (https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/2012-28ATTACHMENT.PDF)

2) “Mandatory Prohibition for Lifetime Sex Offenders-HUD regulations at 24 CFR § 5.856, § 960.204(a)(4), and § 982.553(a)(2) prohibit admission afterJune 25, 2001, if any member of a household is subject to a State lifetime sex offender registration requirement.” (https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/12-28PIHN12-11HSGN.PDF)

I guess CA would need to wait and see if the above bill is passed into law with the caveat the good Senator included. If so, then I can see where a case(s) could be made to challenge the law and the registry in court. Could be interesting times coming on this proposed bill.

Interesting. I obtained both a 17b and expungement in 2002! I could pass job background checks. Yet, I was pulled over once and the cop knew I was registered? I’ve just obtained a COR and been informed by the Courts (on the document) ordered me no longer to register and the DOJ has sent a likewise letter. (3 weeks after my court date). Does anyone (this wasn’t child related) have any recommendations on how to address this on my passport? Redress? I’ll definitely carry a copy of the court order and DOJ if or when!

Did you travel to a state which keeps you registered after you leave? That would require the SO passport verbage.

My charge was 17b and later expunged with a COR! That question makes no sense. I would only be required to register again if convicted of a new crime.

What JM means is that if you had to register in any other state because you went on vacation there or something, that state could still have you on their registry, which is all it takes for the passport mark to exist. Some states will take you off their registry if your home state does, but some wont, like Florida.

JM’s comment makes no sense! I’ve had my charge reduced to a misdemeanor/later expunged and received a COR from LA county ordering me no longer required to register pursuant to 290.05. You guys are almost over the top. No sense. I’m no longer (terminated- rare) required to register and moving on. Best wishes

You’re being mad at us for telling you a possible reason you might have that mark on your passport. The federal government looks at which states still have you on their registry. If you ever registered with another state, that state still might have you on their registry. It doesbt matter if CA has released you.

No, it’s not possible to obtain a 17b, exlungtt expungement and COR and register anywhere again unless you get convicted of another sexual offense per the DOJ! It’s also impossible to have a marker on your passport unless your convicted of a child related offense. I obtained my COR through a loophole. The deadline is June 30th. Had I not spoken to Janice 1 year ago, none of this is possible. The only way your whatever idea is possible is if you get arrested again or moved from your conviction state to a state where the offense isn’t registerable. Otherwise, your crazy and don’t have a brain: A LA County Judge has ordered me no longer to register, the DOJ has ordered me no longer to register and LE has informed me my register requirement is terminated! I’m also terminating myself from this website and thankful it exists. Best wishes

@TMZ/USA…….Bye!!!!! Please follow through and keep your word this time.

Contact me if you want a loophole or an Attorney with several DA contacts. My COR was 1400. Lol. I never stepped into court or saw the Judge/DA

TMZ, you’re not understanding what we’re saying. And this may or may not be your case.

By law, when you travel to another state, you might have to register with them because you’re visiting. Some states, like Florida NEVER, EVER, EVER take you off THEIR registry, regardless of your legal status in your home state. Your COR only applies to your CA conviction. Florida and some other states don’t care.

Then, when the Federal government is making your passport, they looks to see if you’re on ANY state registry. They don’t care that you don’t have to register anyone in CA. If you are, they may still put that marker on your passport.

Also, when you’re traveling to another state right now, you may still have to register with that state. Some states say you don’t have to register with them if you don’t have to register with your home states. Some say you don’t have to register with them if your crime in their state isn’t a registerable offense or enough time has passed that you would’ve stopped registering with them. While other states say you still have to register with them for your original crime regardless of what your home state says. The laws on this are f*d up beyond belief.

Bottom line, many states currently don’t recognize other states saying you don’t have to register.

@ SR: Actually, it’s my understanding that there IS a way to petition for removal from Florida’s Registry after 20 years have passed since one’s been released from custody. But, at present, I have a fancy special passport that no one outside of the U.S.DOJ and U.S. Marshals gives a damn about. No one at foreign customs, hotels, or car rentals have even looked at their uniquely stupid identifier.

Correct. I think you need (SR) to meet a public defender and get your facts down. I’m sure your overwhelmed. If you get off the registry (child related), I would really-apply for a new passport once the DOJ updates their system. Like TMZ, I obtained a COR and I’m no longer in the registry as well. The COR has bold writing: no longer required to register and typically 2-3 weeks thereafter, the DOJ will send a letter as well substantiating this. I personally called my registering office and they had/have a computer system. She replied, congrats. It shows terminated! Best of luck. I suggest taking the court order/DOJ letter with you in case you have concerns. I was bothered my 1st time traveling international, but DHS noted it in their system and I did what’s called a redress. Kudos

***
This new bill – SB731 – proposes criminal record relief, where records are sealed after a person has served their time, completed their probation and parole time, and spent 2 years without no new convictions, offenses or charges pending.
***

There has to be an equal protection law here. Yet, I am taking a different route.

If SB731 has a specific exemption against registrants who have or can achieve these requirements:

  • i) after a person has served time
  • ii) completed their probation and parole time (I think it’s “or” not and)
  • iii) no new convictions, offense, or charges pending after 2 years

And it holds, then why cannot one of us who earned a 1203.4 sue the state of CA because nowhere in 1203.4 states a blanket exception for registrants who earned the 1203.4 when it comes to one specific benefit:

“the court shall thereupon dismiss the accusations or information against the defendant “

Since this law was enacted before 290.007, then 290.007 is unconstitutional as it is another law that contradicts an established law. Since the registry is about sharing private information, then the dismissal of the accusation or info against the defendant cannot be used. The registry is using information that has been dismissed by the courts, which is commanded by one word, “SHALL”.

California Constitution, Article 1, Section 9: A bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts may not be passed.

SB731 has the exception within it’s bill.

1203.4 has no blanket exception within it’s bill, but 290.007 tramples over the regaining of the civil rights provided by 1203.4.

The state cannot have it both ways.

40
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
.