ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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


Monthly Meetings | Recordings (11/19 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

ACSOL Conference Oct 1, 2022 

California

CA: Gavin Newsom signs law to seal criminal records of hundreds of thousands of Californians

Source: sacbee.com 9/30/22

California will soon seal conviction and arrest records for certain ex-offenders that maintain a clean record, a move supporters call the most far-reaching reform of its kind in the nation. Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill Thursday night from Sen. Maria Elena Durazo, D-Los Angeles, allowing people convicted of a felony to have their records automatically sealed if they complete their sentence and remain conviction-free for at least four years. Records of arrest that never resulted in a conviction can be sealed as well.

The law will take effect July 1, and excludes registered sex offenders and people convicted of serious or violent crimes. Those individuals may still petition to have their records sealed.

Read the full article

 

Subscribe
Notify of
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.  
 

77 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Mondays always start off around here with a punch to the gut. It’s as though we don’t matter I don’t want to pay taxes towards school bonds on anything “for the children” or school related. I no longer want to support the future generation that will just be our future enemies.

Is this basically extending 1203.4, or is this real sealing? And if it’s actual sealing, how do we go about petitioning the courts to do so?

F**ing bullshit. [MODERATOR’S NOTE: we have no problem with profanity, but please star out some of the letters, as we state in our guildelines. Thanks]

The registry is not a criminal agency. Why does the rest of the convicted class get to have their past sealed? There isn’t an extra burden on the rest of the convicted class of having a registry citing you are still a danger. With that past sealed, it improves employment. That’s the point of this bill, right?

Why do the 1203.4 registrant subclass not received that complete sealing? Also, why is the regulatory agency utilizing dismissed (or let’s say sealed) information when it’s prohibited from them?

1203.425:

Commencing on January 1, 2023, for any record retained by the court pursuant to Section 68152 of the Government Code, except as provided in paragraph (4), the court shall not disclose information concerning a conviction granted relief pursuant to this section or Section 1203.4, 1203.4a, 1203.41, or 1203.42, to any person or entity, in any format, except to the person whose conviction was granted relief or a criminal justice agency, as defined in Section 851.92.

With 1203.4, it already specifically states the court shall dismiss the accusation or information against the defendant. It means that accusation or info against the defendant is no longer public information.

Why was there a more explicit rule made into law when it was obvious that was what it always meant?

According to this new amended law, 1203.4 should relieve the duty to register starting Jan 1, 2023. It says for ANY record, implying it should also be retroactive. 290 registry scheme is not a criminal agency. That means any 1203.4 registry should be relieved of the duty to register.

And if it is retroactive, then does that mean the government is saying “mea culpa” to the registrant class b/c they did violate the right to privacy against 1230.4 registrants?

At some point, can’t these blanket exclusions be considered an Equal Protection violation? Maybe a Privileges and Immunities…maybe? Maybe both?

PFRs are clearly being discriminated against as a class of citizens. Isn’t that what Equal Protection rights are supposed to prevent?

In other words, while registered persons will still be unable to get jobs picking up roadside trash, embezzlers will get jobs at banks, arsonists will go to work for the fire department, drug dealers will work at pharmacies, and drunk drivers will get jobs as designated drivers.
Sounds fair.

I’m hopeful that ex-registrants will be able to apply to get their records sealed.
I would assume that at the very least I would have to petition them if a 647.6a misdemeanor is defined as a “serious crime”.

Sealing records has limited effect. Scoring political policy points does. Is the really much of a difference being “A registered person” versus “A formally registered person?” Some different sure, but not much. It kinda reveals something about security.
Consider the Banker Advertising that states, ” You will not he held responsible for any purchases (charges) on your (credit) card that you didn’t make.”( the unauthorized)
VERSUS
“Unauthorized charges can never occur when you use our banks card system.”
A nuanced but significant difference.

Maybe we could file a lawsuit on equal protection grounds and get it nullified before it goes into effect. After all if a murderer gets his record sealed, why not us?

Over all, in my opinion only, this is a good bill. I am glad that the Governor has signed this bill into law to help out many felons have their records seal. However. . . where is the fairness for RSO who have stayed clean for Four Years or even longer. I hope this too is taken to court to included RSO. I am confused about the wording in the story:

“The law will take effect July 1, and excludes registered sex offenders and people convicted of serious or violent crimes. Those individuals may still petition to have their records sealed.”

. . . ‘excludes r.s.o . . . individuals may still petition. . . ‘ If RSO are excluded than what is the point in petitioning to sealed records. It is difficult enough to find employment, let alone keeping it. Nevertheless, why should I or anyone else spend what little money what we have to survive on expensive attorney fees just to have the courts reject our petition?

I am willing to bet that lawyers, depending what side of the fence you are on, will all have different interpretation of this wording. No doubt if the DA is involved they will fight all of this in someway. It’s just the “game” they play because they can, will, and do. Good Luck to all who are eligible to have their records sealed.

P.S. I am so tired of the waiting game for my Petition for removal from RSO, Tier 1 designation, to go through the court process. I waited for 1 year and almost 6 months, (since January 2021) for DOJ to make up their minds on my Tier designation. Once that was resolved, then I paid my retainer fees to my attorney at the end of May 2022 and I am still waiting to hear something, anything. I just want to go back to work too. Anyway, thank you for letting me vent here.

That’s bs. They have a similar law called the clean slate act in Pa. Same exact thing. All other people convicted or felony’s and misdemeanors can have their records sealed or expunged after 10 years I believe unless they owe restriction or fines still. It’s bs. Why do registered people have to be discriminated against, this is exactly what this is, 100% grade A discrimination. This will loose under equal protection guaranteed once this is challenged.

They will always make exclusions and rso/pfr will always be easy exclusions. So yes this is blatantly a violation of equal protection. Everyone knows that and agrees on it. It’s the corrupt system that keeps pulling rug out and buying themselves another year and a another term in office. Which means those who represent the People are NOT ACTING IN YOUR BEST INTERESTS. Which means they need to be removed for the evil that they’ve done. Enough is enough. Is enough. You tackle the validity of their laws and then punish them for making those unconstitutional laws. They get away with it every year every term and every 10 seasons of The Simpsons. So enough is enough. Down with 290.

Can Janice or someone clarify – I looked up SB-731 and here’s what I am able to interpret:

If I’m reading it correctly, the exclusion only pertains to those who are currently required to register.

Here’s what I keep seeing throughout the text of SB-731:

(B) A person is eligible for automatic conviction relief pursuant to this section if they meet all of the following conditions:

(i) The person is not required to register pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

I interpret this as that you are not currently required to register and not as “if the person was ever convicted of an offense that requires registration”.

So, to me, this means that if you are first able to successfully petition and are granted relief from registering, then your conviction shall be automatically sealed because you are then “not required to register pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act”.

I would love to hear some insight from Janice or anyone who is better at reading all of this “legalese” than I am. I hope that I am correct.

Why are we always the sacrificial lambs?

Why should we “take a hit” just so others can resume their lives?

Why are we made to drown just so others can swim?

At what point are there enough laws on the books with “except sex offenders” provisions to be able to show legislative animus? The tipping point must be close, if not already passed.

We have an election next month so this is just a political ploy to sway voters. It gets two groups to side with him. All the millions of people with criminal records and their families that will be happy about this, and all the hoards of hysterical people who have been brain washed into believing the SO myth will also be happy that he is discriminating against SO’s, and since there is just 100,000 of us and many can’t vote, Newsome takes it as a win. He is a lifetime, career politician who will say and do anything to gain power. He has his sights on the presdiency so he is going to do nothing for us, he won’t risk the attacks he would get.

I know it’s frustrating to hear the repeated “except sex offender” clause when it comes to criminal justice reform legislation. But at least it’s expanding rights, not taking away rights. And many people with sex convictions are part of that subset of felons who now have the right to have their records sealed. On the other hand, the California tier reform bill made things worst and took away rights of cp offenders not to have their addresses listed. Plus they got pushed up to tier 3. Now I know a lot of registrants benefited from the tier reform the ACSOL supported, and that’s great. But it still remains controversial. Many registrants are worst off because of it. So I guess my greater point is that this record sealing bill is a step in the right direction. Since felons benefit from it, it would make it easier for registrants with felonies to benefit in the future—if there is to be some new legislation allowing the sealing of records for registrants. The legislators can’t just turn around and say well, this only concerns offenders with misdemeanors. Because they would have already passed a bill sealing the records of felons. And second, no one is worst off unlike what happened with tier reform.

It’s time to stop being afraid of voting for Progressive politicians. The arguments are many against doing that but the one that keeps us from making that difficult change is fear of change. Progressive policies are the only thing that will one day give us our freedom. They despise the status quo.

@ACSOL,

Why is the legal system still utilizing blanket coverage on registrants? By law, SB 384 has legally segregated registrants into three tiers. This identifies levels of dangerousness through the legal system. If this is so, then why is there a blanket exception on the registrant class.

In this SB 731, it denotes exclusions to “registered sex offenders and people convicted of serious or violent crimes.” Serious or violent crimes can belong to any convict class, including registrants. But blanket exclusion of registrants is retributive when the state just passed a law to no longer treat the registrant class as a blanket.

All these newer laws are being made using the old premise of 290, where everyone on it is listed as a lifetime termed registrant. As of Jan 1, 2021, PC 290 now recognizes three tiered levels of registrants. Thus, all newer laws must reflect this recognition.

=====

What is worse is the complete disregard to the 1203.4 registrant class. 1203.4 is automatically given to a recipient who successfully completes probation. It cannot be denied!

If this is the case, then how is it possible that a 1203.4 registrant be denied the automatic petition via 1203.425? It forces a registrant in the 1203.4 program to pay for the 1203.4 petition once successfully completed probation. This exclusion is an extortion program levied against 1023.4 registrants or potential 1203.4 registrants and adds an extra burden that all other 1203.4 recipients will no longer partake in due to that step being removed pursuant to 1203.425.

1203.425 is unconstitutional and retributive against the 1203.4 registrant class. Is there a law suit heading up this alley?

It’s always interesting just how little respect we have for the power of our vote. While there are only a few of us in California, our votes still count. And every journey begins with a single step. Unfortunately, we want the laws to change today; not next year or the year after. So we focus on now rather than years from now. That’s called instant gratification. The result of that will be that new registrants will be making the same complaints that we make today, next year and the year after that. When I advocate for others to vote for Progressive politicians, they don’t know that I’m a sex offender, they just hear my words.

I’ll say this again – we need to stop being afraid of progressive politics because progressive politics will set us free. Progressive politicians fight for change. That’s what they do, and the caucus is growing fast but it doesn’t hurt to add your vote to the cause. Just start talking to your friends and family about the Progressive caucus in California. You can find California’s Progressive candidates who are running for local and state offices next month by using the key words [California’s Progressive candidates].

Or, just keep complaining.

For those who haven’t read my previous posts, I had a 288.3(a) expunged (although I was ineligible to reduce it to a misdemeanor) and also was granted relief from the registry through CoR. While I was able to successfully remove any online record of this, one could still go to a courthouse here in L.A., look my name up on the public computers in the lobby and find my record that way. So if I’m reading this PC section correctly, if my record is indeed sealed effective January 1, 2023, then my info will no longer be accessible on the courthouse computers? I’m going to check at my local courthouse come January regardless, but if anyone knows about this then please reply.

Note: for those who are asserting that even former registrants are ineligible, I suggest carefully reading PC 1203.425. It seems that only current registrants are ineligible, not former registrants.

Last edited 1 month ago by Free Again

How do you go about petitioning to get your records sealed as a 290 registrant ?

Thank you

where’s your Moses nooow i can here billy crystal doing his best edward g robinson impersonation ,let my people go. you dirty rat!

i’m still wondering how a person convicted of 288(c)1 who was granted a 1203.4 and a reduction to a misdemeanor 17b and a plea of not guilty 3 years early from probation is entered in tier 3 and can never get off ????so this bill rubs it in more for me and my family

77
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
.