Source: ACSOL
The CA Sex Offender Management Board today reached a “general consensus” regarding 5 of 7 proposed changes to the Tiered Registry Law during its monthly meeting. All of the changes considered today were included in a presentation to the board made by ACSOL during the board’s meeting last month.
Specifically, CASOMB members today gave preliminary approval to the following proposed changes:
(1) remove felony child pornography offenses from Tier 3,
(2) remove convictions for PC 288(c) from Tier 3,
(3) remove attempted offenses from Tier 3,
(4) allow those assigned to Tier 3 to petition for removal after 30 years if the individual has not re-offended and
(5) allow registrants to view their profiles on the Megan’s Law website.
Of the two remaining proposed changes, the CASOMB members decided that one change was outside the scope of their charter and further information was required regarding the remaining change.
During the meeting, CASOMB created a committee of board members to further review the proposed changes for which there was a “general consensus”. Committee members include the CASOMB chairman, Bradley McCartt of the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office, Ellen Coleman formerly of the Los Angeles Public Defender’s office and Sandra Enriquez of a victims rights group. The committee is tasked to meet prior to CASOMB’s next meeting to be held on March 16.
Following CASOMB’s discussion, ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci was allowed to address the board. During her remarks, Bellucci told the board members that time is of the essence for CASOMB to present its recommendations to the legislature because this year is a non-election year and legislation regarding registrants is much more likely to be approved during a non-election year.
“Members of the registrant community are encouraged to attend in person or view online the March 16 meeting of CASOMB,” stated Bellucci. “The Board is expected to share during that meeting the results of the newly formed committee including recommendations to the legislature.”
The March 16 meeting will begin at 9:30 a.m. Pacific Time. and will be held at a location to be determined in Sacramento. In order to view the Zoom meeting online (or call in using a phone), individuals must sign up on the CASOMB website at casomb.org (no www!). There is also a link to download the agenda in MS Word.
Click below to download a full original list of 7 changes that were proposed by ACSOL:
Proposed-Revisions-to-SB-384-Jan-2023.pdf
I’m curious as to why 243.4(a) was not considered, or was it? It would seem this one is a “lesser” offense when looking at some of other ones in T2.
Honestly 30 years for T3 removal is a long time. Especially for people already in the middle ages, they will miss out on a lot that life has to offer, but constrained by registry laws. Why not 25 years?
Janice is my favorite person in the universe right now!
Janice, you are, the best attorney. Period. Unbelievable. I have no words.
People, this simply means some board sees the changes as viable. The legislature will likely disapprove of most in committee.
My question is what tier would indecent liberties or indecent acts be? The tiers are somewhat confusing. Im curious where they’d fall in this.
Question on the removal from the registry after 30 years – is that for folks only if you’ve lived in CA for 30 years, or if someone were to say move to CA, would the time be honored from another state?
Bravo Janice, it’s great to read this news. Hoping this support from the board gets through to the legislature.
Thank you once again!
The next CASOMB meeting on March 16 is just five days before Lobby Day. If CASOMB makes a commitment regarding one or more the proposed changes during their March 16 meeting, we can share that with legislators and staff on Lobby Day.
Wonderful, way to go Janice and team!
It’s good to know that at least some people agree that putting the least violent, least “Predatory”, and ultimately least likely to ever harm a child people at Tier 3 is…questionable.
30 year offramp for T3? True, that is better than nothing, but..
I would be 71 before I get to that offramp, and would have spent better than half of my adult life on the registry. Convicted at 41 means 41-18 = 23 Adult years pre-registry with 30 years of registered “life”.
True, there are many who’s numbers are far worse than this. Also, the 16 year old “Sexting” Registrant? On at 16 and not off until 46? How is getting off at 46 years of age even meaningful? How is it not, ultimately, meaningless? Oh, and add to that they will spend the rest of their life trapped in CA, if they want to stay off the registry that is.
I am eternally grateful to ACSOL for this wonderful news. Thank you all.
30 years. Is that 30 years from being put on Registration, 30 years from offense, 30 years from being assigned to a tier?
Wow – As a Registrant convicted of a CP possession charge – that is a big deal for me to hear that CASOMB agrees to remove CP charges from Tier 3! That is awesome! Thank you, Janice, and everyone involved for pushing that and everything else for us! I am GRATEFUL!
Thank you, Janice… Great work!
OMG… To even think that 288c willl be moved from Tier-3 is amazing. It has not happened yet but thank you to all, Especially Janice, for their efforts.
My BIGGEST QUESTIONS is why isn’t Texas the state with the most RSO in the USA not having these tier 2 and 3 options too? It only makes sense and fair. We have no one doing nothing. I wish JANICE read these comments and maybe talk to her contacts in Texas to help them what to do and what needs to done. I’m sure if RSO in Texas they are looking to see if we can get the same tier system opportunities as California. We will be willing to do donations. But I can’t send money monthly if i can’t see any effort…
My federal conviction was classified as 288 (c)(1) under the state, does this classification make a difference? What does the (1) stand for?
Good news for CA registrants!
As a non-CA registrant, it’s wild to me that registrants weren’t allowed to view their own profiles. How on earth could that have been considered legal, let alone rational? (Two things those of us here know themselves aren’t very connected).
In my state, the registering authorities encourage us to check our own listings to ensure the accuracy of information, including any noncompliance status we believe to be incorrect.
This is really good work and very promising. Thank you to Janice and others for their continued hardwork to restore some humanity to a population that has been dehumanized for very long time. I was convicted of 288a “Intent to contact someone for an unspecified act”. Convicted in 2009. Lifetime registry. Non-Violent crime. Question: Is “Intent” the same as “Attempted”? Thank you for any feedback.
Nice Job Janice. As one of the 2000 CP non production folks, I sure hope this passes the legislature.
I’m a Tier 3 for 311.2D CP offense. Other than that the other 2 items are tier 1 and 2. I’m thrilled that this could allow me to be removed from the Registry next year as I’ve been on this since 2000. Thank you Janice!
This is all very positive news of progress treading in the right direction. Definitely! And, I thank both Janice and CASOMB endlessly.
But, before I celebrate too big too quickly, I have to clarify: while the CASOMB agrees on these proposals, there are still higher courts and other regulatory steps before it could be turned into official California law, and any one of these steps on the way could still possibly reject/alter these changes and ruin it for us. Am I correct?
Well, right now, I can only live in the moment. I’m happy with what’s happening right now and where progress is; right now. =)
They really must treat cp cases differently in California, because in practically every state including here in Arizona, no cp case will be a misdemeanor. In fact, those cases will get you prison time. So this “general consensus” agreement is really meaningless for registrants convicted outside of California
The Tiered Registry Law counts registration time starting when the registrant is released from custody whether from jail or prison. Registration time includes time spent on parole or probation. It does not include time spent in jail or prison for a subsequent conviction of any kind.
This is good news but I feel being left out. Why isn’t 288.2 in the proposal to be considered for tier 1, especially if it was reduced to a misdemeanor? I know there are fewer of us in this category and is not getting much attention. It’s no contact, non-violent and certainly does not compare even close to some of the violent crimes in tier 3.
So, would CP possession move to tier 2 or 1?