Comments that are not specific to a certain post should go here, for the month of Dec 2022. Contributions should relate to the cause and goals of this organization and please, keep it courteous and civil. This section is not intended for posting links to news articles without additional relevant comment.
Related posts
-
-
SORNA Case Advances in Federal Court; PLF Files Motion for Summary Judgment
The Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) filed a motion for summary judgment on November 18 in its... -
FL:What’s behind the recent uptick in local child predator arrests?
PORT ST. LUCIE, Fla. (CBS12) — This week, we have seen an alarming number of child predators arrested....
Does anyone know the deadline for the State to establish tier for TBD? I heard it could be Jan 2023 or July 2023
looks like this bill is for only more government money.
“We put a high school there back in the early ’70s. Then we put a landfill in, and then we put a prison in. Now we’re going to put this out there. I mean, we’re dooming this whole area out there.” So just so we’re clear. school > landfill> prison> Housing for a person who committed a sex offense.
Oshkosh council limits DORA expansion, defers action on fees, sex offender housing
glad to see what they really think showing thru.
I encourage ALL of you to make this resolution for the New Year 2023:
Every time you come across an news/media article that is spreading lies about Sex Offense Registries, RESPOND!!!
Write a “comment” on the article’s website AND / OR write to/email the journalist/article’s author directly and encourage him/her to STOP spreading the law enforcement’s “copaganda” lies!!
⭐ ⭐ WE ALL NEED TO START RESPONDING EVERY TIME & TO EVERY ARTICLE!! ⭐ ⭐
🔸I believe we can start to have a major impact and start turning the tide if we respond IN LARGE NUMBERS to these type of articles!
There are A MILLION+ people on S.O. Registries. Imagine the effect if EVERY false-narrative news article gets a huge response from us!!🔸
(Tip: Make it easy on yourself: Write a standard reply and store it as a “draft” email or email it to yourself. Then you can just copy-n-paste it and revise it appropriately for each use!!)
Florida pastor and his son are arrested in alleged $8 million Covid scam
See? Good things happen in Florida, too! 😎🤙
article about the former New York Giants punter who got cut for rape accusations later found to be not guilty.
Got 60 days for my charge. Wrote the judge and got a time cut at the macomb county jail. During one of my visits, my wife was stopped in the elevator for 20 mins of my visit. I lost my mind. My visit was not extended. The other inmates told me what that emergency stop was all about. I chased the next two deps off my tier. Things happen to inmates and their families. Funny thing how I got a one man room after that. Punishment comes in all kinds of forms. There’s more than one way to hurt a man. Those on the other side would say, I don’t deserve a wife, to be happy. I’m not stupid, whatever happened in that elevator, she ultimately had to agree. Stuff like this makes me almost split personality. Compartmentalize to be certain. Everytime a thought creeps in, I have to suppress it and pretend I’m living a life where I’m not re living that, other jacked up incidents, and life is okay. There are nuggets throughout the day I cling to that are peaceful, happy, and fantastic. The rest reminds me I’m being punished for the rest of my life. They don’t call it life probation, but that’s just another name for the registry.
Hawaii. Does anyone have any experience with SOR in Hawaii? I would love to find someone to chat with. I am tier 1 in California and 2 years into my 10, and I want to move to Hawaii. I am blessed to be off probation and want to move away from here. Can anyone give me some sound advice for pluses/minuses of SOR life in Hawaii. It is everything for me. I will be reaching out to local DAs there but find this place to be a great resource. Thank you in advance.
From a sandiegocounty.gov site about 1203.4…
What are the effects of expungement under PC1203.4/1203.4a?
It Will:
1. Result in a new entry in the court record showing the dismissal of the case;
2. Allow you to answer on many, but not all, job applications that you have not been convicted. If, however, you are applying for a government job or a job which requires a government-issued license, certificate, or permit, or a job which involves a security clearance, the conviction will be discovered; in such cases, you should disclose the initial conviction and its later expungement;
3. Prevent use of the conviction to impeach you if you testify as a witness, unless you are being tried for a subsequent offense.
4. If the conviction was for a felony, expungement is the first step in obtaining a pardon.
============
I want to focus on point 3. “prevent use of conviction to impeach you”. Point 3 is consistent with points 1 and 2. You are no longer convicted due to the accusation/info against the defendant is dismissed. This allows you to honestly answer you have not been convicted. Even in some circumstances where you have to divulge that info it also is accompanied with its expungement to recognize rehabilitation took place.
Previously, I shared how when the old, old registry scheme changed from punitive to regulation around the 2000s and 1203.4 with right to privacy were not extended to the 1203.4 registrant class.
Why did the previous CA registry scheme prevent online dissemination if one earned a 1203.4, but with the new scheme, SB-384, there are some cases now being disseminated online who have earned 1203.4? Simple, no one is following the laws when it comes to those with sex crimes convictions and/or non-convictions.
The dissemination of accusation online intimates your record is public, but under the old registry scheme it could not disseminate your info and accusation because it was dismissed. Sharing that info declared by the courts to be private because the accusation/info was dismissed. There exists a conflict of logic because how can an individual be “doxed” when legally they are no longer convicted of a sex crime?
It’s an odd dichotomy with the old registry scheme to not disseminate the accusation, but also keep one on the registry scheme because logically it makes no sense and the laws are broken. Publicly, you’re not seen online, but behind the scenes, your accusation is still live.
Anyhow, SB-384 completely does away with recognizing 1203.4 equally among the registrant class. Some 1203.4 registrants are not shown online. Some 1203.4 registrants are shown online. By showing 1203.4 registrants online, the state is “doxing” an individual is still convicted of a sex crime… sharing private information that the state court granted to be dismissed and no longer public. Doxing is illegal in California because of the “right to privacy”.
If the courts can’t use a dismissed conviction to tarnish a individual’s reputation, then how can a “regulatory scheme” use a dismissed conviction?
Again, no one in the legal realm in CA is fighting against the trampling of 1230.4 registrant recipient rights, which includes “the right to pursue and obtain privacy.”
I have a few questions regarding “Sealed Records” in California: A New California law beginning in January 2023: The law would permanently and electronically seal most felony convictions after a person fully completes their sentence, including any time on probation, and would require a certain number of subsequent years without any arrests. The law would also apply to people who were charged with a felony and served time in state prison and who have a record of an arrest that never resulted in a conviction. Law enforcement, courts and the state Department of Justice would still have access to the records. Does this new law apply felony sex convictions that have been “dismissed” under 1203.4? If yes, do you or should you wait until after you have been successfully granted removal from the registry? If no, can we still apply from Petition to permanently and electronically seal our records? And if so, how successful this may or not be in the Courts by Counties? Thank you
@New Person et al, I came across a case that I thought had some interesting points. This might be useful for those who have been formerly excluded from Megan’s Law and with the new law (SB384), are now publicly displayed, especially if the risk score is the reason for this change. It is Doe vs DOJ. I thought there were a few interesting points made. 1. “B.M. contends that publication of his personal information on the Megan’s Law Web site violates section 1203.4, under which his conviction was dismissed in 1997. The Department submits that B.M. forfeited review of the issue by not raising it at the trial court. As it is a pure issue of law, however, we nonetheless consider it.” So, if one raises it at trial court, it should be considered? 2. “Liberty Interests
Additionally, G.G. and B.M. claim the posting of their personal information on the Megan’s Law Web site infringes on their liberty interests in privacy and reputation without due process of law. They suggest they are entitled to a hearing to show they pose no current danger to the public.
The United States Supreme Court, however, has rejected this argument under a statutory scheme similar to California’s. In Connecticut Dept. of Public Safety v. Doe (2003) 538 U.S. 1, 123 S.Ct. 1160, 155 L.Ed.2d 98, the issue was whether public disclosure on Connecticut’s Megan’s Law Web site of a registered offender’s name, photograph and other identifying information, deprived him of a liberty interest in his reputation and violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by depriving him of a hearing to determine whether he was currently dangerous. The court held that since the Connecticut Legislature based the registration and disclosure requirements on the fact of previous conviction, rather than current dangerousness, “even assuming, arguendo, that respondent has been deprived of a liberty interest, due process does not entitle him to a hearing to establish a fact that is not material under the Connecticut statute.” (Id. at p. 7, 123 S.Ct. 1160.) As the court noted, when registration and disclosure is based on the fact of conviction, the “offender has already had a procedurally safeguarded opportunity to contest.” (Ibid.) As registration and disclosure under California law is also based on the fact of conviction rather than current dangerousness, we find no constitutional violation.” Does that mean that (1), California DOES do disclosure based on conviction and not dangerousness, so the Static 99-R should have no bearing when it comes to if the person’s information should be made public, but rather the type of offense? This is in agreement with what Megan’s law states under FAQ: “The offense for which you were registered, not the surrounding factual circumstances of the conviction determine whether you will be posted, pursuant to PC290.46” This statement is on Megan’s Law as of today, one year after the new law went into effect. And (2), for those whose offense never posted them in the past, but are now posted, they had no chance to contest it since at the time of their sentence, their offense was not one to be publicly disclosed. This case exclusively deals with people who were able to file for an exclusion under previous law, but with the new law, their exclusion was rescinded. So I don’t think this will benefit this group, but I would think it would benefit those maybe whose offense per Penal Code was not one to be disclosed under previous law. I just want to get some input on whether my thinking makes sense, or if I am missing something.
So, here we are almost in 2023, and the new law 1203.425 will be effective 1/1/23. Even though, registrants are excluded from automatic sealing of their records, they are still able to receive the 1203.4 the old fashioned way via petitioning for if they qualify. Commencing, 1/1/23, anyone who qualifies for 1203.425 or 1203.4 should not have their information publicly disseminated (except to the person who received the expungement or a criminal agency, Megan’s Law is neither). Since ACSOL advocated for the Tiered Registry, and many registrants got the short end of the straw with the new law and were added to the public site after never having been public before despite earning a 1203.4, can this be a priority to address and file a lawsuit since we were promised that nobody would be thrown under the bus? Every time, this important topic comes up, there is nothing but crickets.
We in the forum discuss SCOTUS from time to time and cases coming through there which impact PFRs or could impact them from another angle if not a PFR related case. I read this editorial by NYT on Yahoo today on SCOTUS which is quite interesting. The impact on PFRs varies but SCOTUS can’t run forever from the right case which a PFR has brought to them and must be addressed.
An ‘Imperial Supreme Court’ Asserts Its Power, Alarming Scholars
After reading articles and comments on blogs devoted to reforming or abolishing sex offender registries, I’ve come up with a hair-brained idea. Since I can’t predict its implications and collateral effects, I’ll present this only as a topic for discussion.
Many of the arguments regarding the unfairness or unconstitutionality of registries center around ex post facto. This line of attack has been stymied by the requirement that registries constitute punishment. Although there have been a few wins in some courts, most have rejected the argument.
Contrary to some posts I’ve read, criminal courts do not sentence anyone to the registry. Judges will often advise defendants prior to plea acceptance that they will be required to register. This is not a part of a sentence, but is merely advising as to a collateral civil regulatory requirement. Judges can only assign punishment as defined under criminal statutes, and cannot deviate from that. Legislatures cannot punish, but can only define the boundaries of punishment for judges to mete out in individual cases requiring due process.
What would happen if a legislature could be prompted to include registration in a criminal statute along with prison and fines? First it would allow a judge to determine the length and/or conditions of registration for an individual. We’ve all been advocating for individualized treatment, and the sentencing court is the proper place for this. Most importantly, doing so would clearly establish the registry as punishment for a crime. This would be very powerful in any ex post facto argument. It could even apply to bills of attainder (or bills of pains and penalties).
If registration is now punishment for criminal offenses, could that require all current registrants to be removed from the civil registry because of ex post facto concerns? Going forward from the date of enactment, courts could specify registration as a part of a sentence, but it could not be judicially applied retroactively for a prior conviction. Of course it would be a legislative function to define the statute which would constrain the court’s latitude.
This is where my hair-brained idea comes in. Our organizations could lobby for and perhaps draft legislation including registration as punishment for specific crimes. This would empower judges to make registry determinations. Even an implementation in a single criminal statute in a single state would provide ammunition in the “registry is punishment” fight.
Remember that I’m only offering this as a straw-man tactic. There are bound to be unforeseen and likely undesirable consequences. Is the concept even worth exploring or do I have my head in a somewhat less than sunny place?
[PFR] collected signatures for Jesus “Chuy” Garcia mayoral campaign in Chicago.
Can someone send a link to the current version of SB384? I only seem to find the text for when it was chaptered in 2017. I believe there were changes since?
Speaking as a registrant, it’s truly disappointing how registrants are most often overlooked and disregarded in today’s system. It’s become unbelievably easy for lawmakers to pass laws, regulations and rules without realizing their actual impacts (often in a reelection bid). They do this all in the name of safety for the public but fail to realize or, more likely ignore the potential damaging ramifications these laws will have on those they’re meant to govern, without actual consideration/review for the particular offense (every situation is different). Often these laws are Ex Post Facto. Also, because a judge cannot see a negative impact, they allow the law to be enforced. International Megan’s Law, for example, has made it so I cannot travel to Mexico or Canada or half of most other popular travel destinations. I’ve completed my term of supervision, why must I continue to be marked with an endorsement in my passport and have to notify law enforcement about future travel arrangements? This is oppressive and overbearing and is truly punitive. They say that they’re not taking our rights to travel but that’s exactly what they are doing, by providing notification of registrants’ advanced travel arrangements. Countries are turning offenders away at customs and ending vacations before they start. This is not right. I normally don’t post publicly but finding private/reasonable legal representation is nearly impossible. I just wanted to share my gripes in the case that there’s someone out there who can help.
I’m somewhat conflicted about Ukraine.
Should strong people/countries protect weaker ones from criminal bullies? Or should we just ignore it or only help if it is in our interests?
I think the moral answer is that you cannot stand by. Putin is murdering innocent men, women, children, and dogs. I find that so unacceptable that I think if I were in charge I would’ve sent overwhelming defenses and support into Ukraine at the very beginning. Bullies can’t be tolerated. Because the world has stood by and done too little, Putin is now murdering civilians. He should be killed.
On the other hand, Ukraine apparently thinks so little of me that they will not allow me to even walk in their country. If you have a person/country that treats you like that, should you help them? I am very careful to never help anyone/company/organization/charity that supports Registries or targets PFRs. In fact, I do what I can to harm them. So why would I care to help Ukraine?
There are a significant number of assholes in Amerika who don’t want to help Ukraine. They are working to stop help. Should PFRs join them? Why should I work hard to pay to help Ukraine? They disrespect my whole family.
Merry Christmas, all!!!
Has it ever been established whether former registrants will still need to petition to get records sealed or if it will be automatic?
Chattanooga homeless housing within 2,000 feet of a school. Yep you guessed it right, [PFR] ban!
So there was a young woman in my town who had been missing for a few weeks. On the morning of December 23 I had the appointment for my yearly. Went in and all was fine.
Had taken the day off so I went home. When the mail came I checked it and there was a letter addressed to me, handwritten address. Opened it up and inside there were 2 pages. The first page was the missing flyer for the young woman. Written on it in red was, “Confess what you know or Krampus will bring you coal”. The 2nd page was an image of some demonic looking Santa and written on that was “Yule, 12 o’clock, tick tock”
So of course I was in immediate shock. Scared, frustrated. I didn’t know what to do. Called my brother and he said I should go back and report it to the police. Luckily my wife and daughter were out Christmas shopping so I went back to the police to show them.
They were actually sympathetic but they said there was no real expressed threat and there was nothing I could do. They said it was most likely some person with nothing better to do had seen the report on the news about the missing woman and had sent these to all the registrants in the area and that’s as far as it would get. The police said it was an a**hole thing to do but without the specific threat they couldn’t do anything.
And here I am, 5 days later and nothing has happened so they were right. I looked up the return address on the letter and it’s actually the house used for Freddy Kreuger’s house in the Nightmare on Elm Street movies.
Usually my anxiety increases in December as my registration date approaches but it recedes after it’s done. This year I got to spend Christmas worrying if some crazy person was going to come to my house.
This registry thing needs to end. There’s a target on all of us and nobody cares.
I am Tier 3 here in California, how do I get off? What is the path to redemption in the eyes of the law?
The homeless situation starting from San Diego all the way up the coast to Sacramento is disgusting, over the last 2-3 years California has been providing homeless shelters and homeless programs for people on the street who wanna get help, So the majority of the people who are still on the streets are people with severe mental health issues and drug addictions and because “Sex Offenders” aren’t allowed in shelters like Union Rescue Mission for instants, “Sex offenders”are forced to live on the streets with these highly dangerous unstable people.
One time I did find a Shelter that would take me in but they put me in my own room away from everyone and I wasn’t allowed to go to church because women would be attending the service and they had the chaplain bringing me my food and following me around to keep an eye on me, it was annoying I ended up leaving.
You know gotta bad when a homeless shelter would rather help someone out of their mind covered in feces, with lice and ticks in their hair, then help someone who made a mistake 10-20-30 years ago.
I got a call last week from a Sheriff Michael Brown. He left a message to call him. I called back with no answer but left a message. He called again and I didn’t answer because I wanted to inconvenience him with phone tag. Today I called the Sheriff and discovered he did not work for them. Scammers will keep on targeting us if they succeed with getting our money. Always call dispatch and verify if they are an employee and what phone number they can be reached at.
I came across Nevada https://www.justice.gov/usao-nv/pr/department-justice-awards-over-46-million-grants-support-public-safety-efforts-nevada grant money if anyone cares to go thru it.