ACSOL made a presentation today to the CA Sex Offender Management Board regarding proposed changes to the CA Tiered Registry Law. The presentation included seven proposed changes and was made by ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci.
The proposed changes are (1) reduce from Tier 3 to Tier 1 individuals convicted of a non-production felony child pornography offense, (2) clarify that courts may consider a petition for removal from the registry even if the individual does not have a tier assignment, (3) reduce from Tier 3 to Tier 2 individuals convicted of violating PC 288(c), (4) reduce from Tier 3 to Tier 1 individuals convicted of an attempted offense, (5) reduce from Tier 3 to Tier 1 individuals whose felony convictions have been reduced to a misdemeanor, (6) allow individuals assigned to Tier 3 to petition for removal after 30 years of registration and (7) allow registrants to view their profiles posted on the Megan’s Law website.
During the presentation, Bellucci invited CASOMB to join ACSOL and other organizations as an ally to ensure the proposed changes become law. CASOMB stated it would create a committee to review the proposed changes.
Also during today’s CASOMB meeting, several state agencies made reports that included registrant statistics. For example, the CA Department of Justice reported that the total number of registrants is 106,952 which is 1,773 fewer than reported in January 2022. Of that total, there are 19,762 registrants in violation which is 283 fewer than reported in January 2022. The Department of Adult Parole (DAPO) reported that there are 6,862 registrants on parole which is 374 fewer than reported in January 2022.
The CA Department of Justice also made a report regarding the petitioning process under the Tiered Registry Law. According to that agency, a total of 3,169 petitions have been granted, 64 petitions have been denied and 1,599 petitions are pending.
Click below to download a PDF of the presentation:
Proposed Changes to Tiered Registry Law – Jan 2023
Proposed Revisions to SB 384 Jan 2023
If this idea were to get adopted by the state legislature at any point in my lifetime that would without doubt be Janice Bellucci’s greatest achievement. She will have her magnum opus.
Many thanks to Janice for an excellent Tiered Registry (Needs Revisions) presentation to the CASOMB Board this morning!!
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
I think CASOMB Board members listened and heard. 👍🏻
Hopefully, they will support the recommended revisions. 🙏🏻
Thank you for this ACSOL, just thank you. Thank you for having the courage and commitment to Justice and Human rights to do this.
I’m not going to pretend I know what the outcome of all of this will be, but regardless of what may come, know you have my eternal gratitude for trying.
May all that you hold as good and true, bless you and keep you well.
Janice Bellucci, I appreciate you for doing this!
Absolutely wonderful recommendations!
I still hope in the future that 1204.3 and/or CoR recipients will be able to argue their tier down from lifetime to either Tier 1 or 2. I don’t believe it would be much of a stretch if misdemeanors would have the ability to go to Tier 1 from Tier 2.
Nevertheless, none of us could have believed this was possible ten years ago. Thank you Janice and ACSOL!
W O W she hit ’em hard , WOW, even invited CASOMB to join on the ACSOL fight. AMAZING,will be patient for results and outcome from the Fruit of her Labor.
Thanks Janice and Team that assisted and were present. “ACSOL Board is a Force to be Reckoned With”. . .
I am so impressed with all this movement and activity! Janice you are amazing! Just yesterday the Press Release came out and today you are back at it!!!
I have a concern. I would like to see the language of (6) modified. Here is what it says: (6) allow individuals assigned to Tier 3 to petition for removal after 30 years of registration. I would like to see the language something like this: allow individuals assigned to Tier 3 to petition for removal from the registry after 30 years without having any subsequent prosecution. I am suggesting this because there are Tier 3 people whose offense was “Pre-Registration” for example their offense could have taken place in 1988 and Megan’s Law was introduced in 1996. If removal was based on 30 years of registration date NOBODY would be removed until 2026. (1996 + 30 + 2026). Do I understand this this correctly? I welcome any clarification or suggestions to my concern.
Bravo Janice!!!!!
Did the presentation reference that under SORNA, non-production CP offenses are Tier 1?
30 years so some kid that messed up severely at 18 don’t get his life back until he’s 48. Ten years is mor than enough that’s how it was designed in the first place.
What about convictions that have been expunged? I think they should be reduced to Tier 1.
Thank you, Janice and ACSOL for this.
QUESTION: Is there any benefit to citing the recommended changes to the MPC (Model Penal Code) made by the ALI (American Law Institute) in the recent past? What ever became of that?
I wonder some how if that can get this done in Texas, tier 3 apply to get off after 30 years?
Awesome work Janice and team. I’m wondering though, why not also include 243.4(a) ? It’s odd that should be T3 while more “serious” convictions are in T2. That’s the one thing holding me back from being on T2 and going for removal. I’ve been registering now for over 21 years and it would be nice to have freedom to be human again.
Sounds like gov’t…create a commission to do something instead of just looking at what is in front of them and deciding. They are a board for a reason! Yes, yes, must do due diligence to understand impacts, etc, but this is why the system takes so long.
When a standard CA murder rap gets 30 years, then tier 3 should be 30. However, it is standardly 25 to life; therefore, 25 years is better but tier 3 should be individually assessed just as the others should be. There is no science behind the years.
When I was working on my 17(b) and 1203.4 with the Riverside County public defenders office post conviction unit, I asked them if they knew who Janice Belluicc was they said yes, and when I was starting my petition process with the Los Angels public defenders office post conviction unit, I ask them the same question and they also knew who Janice was.
I was very impressed because these were very well seasoned attorneys they had been around for a long time.
We are literally watching history in the making, back when ACSOL was lobbying for the first Tier law, I didn’t think it would ever happen BUT ACSOL stood firm on what they believed in and got it done.
None of these proposed changes to the California Tiered registry affect me in anyway but I still support The proposal because I truly believe it could save a lot of lives from this nightmare and it just makes sense.
Janice and ACSOL,
Thank you from the bottom of my heart for all your hard work. I hope they pay attention to the common sense of your recommendations. Even just having you in our corner gives me peace.
Thank you!
Would it be cool if California become the 1st state to remove the Megan’s law? Let’s go all the way!!
Don’t get me wrong , I thank ACSOL / Janice and crew for what they do . ” But the very idea that some people have to petition off this Blatant unconstitutional act , not just after doing their time but 30 years after doing the prison and paper , we should never have to see a court room after all this criminal act of the state , heck after all these years they should bring a cake and some beers . it would cost far less than the stupid compliant’s checks , and printing up more papers to fill out just to ruin peoples day year after year , the state have been raping us for 30+ years , petition ? why ? what could we have to prove after all this time . just more public square BS , The fact remains that the registry keeps no one safe and any sane person would looks at the constitution can see without “narrowing or broadening” what it says , It is unconstitutional beyond a shadow of doubt .on more levels than they are able to count , that is criminal or at the very least insane .
Recall that the CA registry had to be sued by Janice and ACSOL years ago in court because they had incorrect information on Megan’s List because they were not updating information.
CA has a right to privacy law which includes the Information Practices Act of 1977. There’s a Civil Code that allows a citizen to sue for false information being shared by any state agency.
Article 9. Civil Remedies
1798.45 An individual may bring a civil action against an agency whenever such agency does any of the following:
(a) Refuses to comply with an individual’s lawful request to inspect pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 1798.34.
(b) Fails to maintain any record concerning any individual with such accuracy, relevancy, timeliness, and completeness as is necessary to assure fairness in any determination relating to the qualifications, character, rights, opportunities of, or benefits to the individual that may be made on the basis of such record, if, as a proximate result of such failure, a determination is made which is adverse to the individual.
—
By CA law, its citizens have a right to have accurate record if an agency is sharing a citizen’s information online. Why isn’t this right not extended to registrants whose info is being shared online by a statutory/regulator agency? We already have evidence that the CA registry has been sharing incorrect information online and had to be sued by ACSOL to force the agency to fix and update correct information.
I wish we had a Janice Bellucci in Texas. The “Great” state of Texas doesn’t have anyone fighting for us and we the most RSO in America. You would think they would be trying to find a better way to manage that and release people thats been on there for decades thats never been in trouble with the law again.
After spending many years, slowly, carefully and methodically rebuilding a life for myself and my family post-conviction, I was torpedoed by the new tiered registry law. It got so bad, so fast, that I had to move out of California and start all over again. I understand what ACSOL is doing, and why. I support the efforts towards incremental changes because that’s what the leadership here believes is the best strategy to help the most people. I am in no position to be judgmental of the amazing efforts of others. If adopted, these changes won’t help me. But it sounds like they will help others. That said, the registry is not Constitutional. Everybody knows this. And as the group of remaining registrants gets smaller, they will have a larger and larger target placed on their backs. It is my hope that sometime very soon, the strategy shifts from incremental “chipping away” and becomes focused on the absolute abolition of this scam on the public known as the registry. The whole thing. All of it. Not just pieces of it. If the laws in my new home don’t get worse, then I am back to where I started 20 years ago. So whatever California does no longer impacts me. But it will impact a whole lot of people who are still there. I hope that those who are forced to remain on T3 are not left behind in these efforts.
What I don’t understand that with the Tiered Registry, some who have never been publicly listed are all of a sudden on the public site after decades. If the registry truly is meant for public safety, where does the logic come in here? Someone was not a threat for 20 years, and all of a sudden they are? How does that make any intelligent person feel? That the government kept these “dangerous” people off the public site for 20 years, without the public knowing their whereabouts? Another example of how ridiculous the registry is, and how the public becomes more and more ignorant. I personally would be very upset with the government who kept information of a “dangerous” PFR from me for decades, where my life or that of my children could have been at harm all those years. If they were not deemed a threat then, they surely are no threat twenty years later. So, again. why are people added to the public site that have never been public with the previous law? SB 384 should have not been allowed to add people without due process! Especially if these people have earned a 1203.4 to top it off. New Person, I asked this before, how do you see PC290.007 being valid as written? The part of the COR being the only way off the registry is no longer accurate as a COR is no longer available. We would have been eligible for a COR after 7 years, which was right before SB384 went into effect, and now we are stuck in Tier 3 with a way off after 20 years. 7 years versus 20 years without due process or any type of evaluation seems completely unconstitutional to me.By the way, I refer to “we” as I feel that I am being punished just the same.
Funny that one needs to propose to a governing body what seems like common sense.
There is absolutely no way that 288(c)(1) should be a Tier 3 or Tier 2 offense.
At most, it is a Tier 1 offense, whether Felony or Misdemeanor, especially in light of MENENDEZ V. WHITAKER (9th Cir. 2018) 908 F.3d 467. In this ruling, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals discuss the nature of the Section 288(c)(1) crime. Within this discussion, the judges relate the very innocuous acts which are chargeable offenses under Section 288(c)(1). They conclude that “Any touching, even if consensual, “outwardly innocuous and inoffensive,” and “innocently and warmly received,” can violate § 288(c)(1).” Further examination leads the judges to conclude a couple of facts regarding Section 288(c)(1):
1. We hold that § 288(c)(1) is not categorically a crime involving moral turpitude.
2. We hold that Cal. Penal Code § 288(c)(1) is not categorically a “crime of child abuse”.
If 288(c)(1) is neither a crime involving moral turpitude nor a crime of child abuse, nor a violent or serious crime, then what is it? The Circuit Court called it, “overbroad”.
As previously pointed out, Cal. Penal Code § 288(c)(1), is classified as the lowest level felony offense, also called a “wobbler” offense, since it can be charged as either a misdemeanor or felony, per the DA’s discretion. Per Cal. Penal Code, § 288(c)(1) is neither a serious or violent offense. “Second, § 288(c)(1) does not require proof of actual injury, or a “sufficiently high risk of harm,” as an element of the offense. Section 288(c)(1) applies irrespective of whether the touching is outwardly innocuous, or whether the minor is aware of the nature of the contact at all.” The Court ruled, ” because § 288(c)(1) requires only sexual intent, and because a good-faith reasonable mistake of age is not a defense, a defendant is not required to have “evil or malicious intent.””
The first proposed change “ (1) reduce from Tier 3 to Tier 1 individuals convicted of a non-production felony child pornography offense” applies to me, & I wonder if it ever were enacted so that I became a tier 1 how would it even apply? My case was in federal court even though I register with the state so if my status changed I would have to get a federal public defender to make an application with the federal court in San Francisco, & I am not sure that they are concerned with the states view on tiers. Any input would be very helpful.