CA Sex Offender Management Board Discusses Further Improvements to Tiered Registry Law

The California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) continued today its discussions of improvements to the Tiered Registry Law during its regularly scheduled monthly meeting.  During those discussions, CASOMB identified three improvements to that law as their top priorities — removal of CP offenses from Tier 3, creating an off-ramp for those assigned to Tier 3 and allowing registrants to access their profiles on the Megan’s Law website.  

Also during those discussions, CASOMB determined that “deeper study” is required before they can make a recommendation regarding either the reduction of PC 288(c) offenses to Tier 2 or attempted offenses to Tier 1.  CASOMB will not pursue the lack of tier assignments or delays in updating records within the California Department of Justice (CA DOJ).

A committee created by CASOMB during its meeting last month will continue to meet and ultimately draft a formal report regarding the proposed improvements to the Tiered Registry Law.  That committee is to provide the full board with a status report during CASOMB’s next meeting which is scheduled for May 18.  CASOMB will not meet in April.

During the meeting, the CASOMB members expressed a general consensus that registrants who live in the community for 20 years and do not re-offend should not be required to register.  The members asked the committee to study this factor in order to determine how it could be used when CASOMB makes recommendations regarding Tiered Registry Law improvements to the legislature.

The improvements to the Tiered Registry Law considered by CASOMB during today’s meeting were initiated by ACSOL and communicated to CASOMB during its meeting in January 2023.  During that presentation, ACSOL identified a total of 7 proposed changes to the Tiered Registry Law.

Also during today’s meeting, the following statistics were reported by CA DOJ.  The total number of registrants is 106,532.  Of that total, there are 78,359 registrants living outside of jail or prison.  There are 19,462 registrants living outside of jail or prison who are “in violation”, that is, they have failed to register in a timely manner.  CA DOJ also reported that there are 6,690 registrants who are homeless.

CA DOJ also reported today that the number of petitions for removal from the registry continues to grow.  The total number of petitions filed so far is 5,511.  Of that total, 3,686 petitions have been granted, 76 petitions were denied and 242 petitions were dismissed because the petitioners were not eligible.  There are an additional 1,507 petitions that have been filed, but which are still waiting for a court’s review.

 

 

Related posts

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 and a**
  4. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Use person-first language.
  5. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  6. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  7. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  8. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  9. 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 that are not personally identifiable.
  10. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  11. Please do not post in all Caps.
  12. 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. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  13. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  14. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  15. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  16. Please do not solicit funds
  17. No discussions about weapons
  18. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  19. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  20. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  21. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  22. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
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.  
 

46 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Well if we get even 50% of what we want with these people, that’s a win. GO JANICE!

Thank you for the update!
Kind of a bummer that there isn’t real fuel for making changes to present in a few days but definitely moving forward and not backwards

We didn’t get everything we wanted but we got something. That’s a win in my book. Great job Janice and thank you so much. Now we just have to worry about the legislature. Luckily, the experts are on our side here and that matters a lot.

So one in 4 registrants out in society don’t register. Yeah, this is working real well. How can there be any accurate statistics with a record like that?

It is exciting news to hear that removals are occurring. Whether that also dispatches federal duties ” to register” is the immediate question. Notably the lack of an off ramp was probative in Smith V Doe. The release from the burden ” to register ” is an end to indentured servitude to database upkeep.
So when you wonder why federal actors have moved to assert both their arrest and prosecutorial authorities for federal FTR doctrine; It may be a direct reaction to California’s actions on that scoreas federal socialists are panicking about cracks in the system. The database driven system.
Proving the point that was always far more about the ” database ” rather than the violent human sex offender. No one can dispute the collateral consequences and damage that has be done, cemented by precedent, to the relative disposition between man and machine.
When a sociopath society begins criminalizing men masturbating in their own homes so they can release in favor of others who’ve publicly and brutally beaten another with fist or weapon and then claim ” public safety as the goal of the registration regimes, and domestic surveillance initiatives have lost all reason for constitutional discipline. Our debt load says it all.

“…regarding the proposed improvements to the Tiered Registry Law…”

The only real improvement they can make is to abolish it entirely.

During the meeting, the CASOMB members expressed a general consensus that registrants who live in the community for 20 years and do not re-offend should not be required to register. The members asked the committee to study this factor in order to determine how it could be used when CASOMB makes recommendations regarding Tiered Registry Law improvements to the legislature.

How about live in the community for 20 years and do not re-offend = AUTOMATIC removal from the registry?!

We as a unit need to fight this hard ! The fact the board considered an off pathway for tier 3 slaves whom otherwise cannot be removed from the hit list is huge ! A lot of us with 261 pc 220 pc codes which are keeping us from getting off the registry other than receiving a pardon ( not going to happen) and the fact this pathway conversation is flowing throughout the board is awesome . Thank you Janice and Chance for looking out for us. Note : I believe this will be a no brainer to present to the legislature for passage because if you think about it , these types of codes are virtually hopeless for removal as the law stands in its current language. The right thing to do is open the “Hope” door for these type of citizens having these restrictions ( via codes) to have a pathway for removal. As one board suggested , the 20 year living in the community with no subsequent offense is a huge step in the right direction. Positive vibes for sure.

Great work ACSOL team! I’d like to add that if there is “ a general consensus that registrants who live in the community for 20 years and do not re-offend should not be required to register” then they should remove the ability of the DA to object and there should be no petitioning required for law-abiding citizens.

I don’t know how CA gets away with blocking PFRs from reading public info on the Megan’s Law website, even if it is their own. They don’t block people away from other public info of their own, do they, i.e., their own public records related to a owned home filed with the local municipality, e.g., taxes paid, bought/sold, etc? One should not have to go online to find it through a commercial website that scrapes the gov’t database for the same info.

It IS public info as they continually say so the masses can read it as long as they don’t do something negative with it but only allegedly inform themselves. Is there not an open records act or law on the CA books? What is the CA FOIA law? What is their justification for an exemption to those who have records on the ML website from reading them or the records of others who may be on it, e.g., public safety? How is one to ensure their personal public data is correct online if they are not allowed to view it directly? Just because the forms are checked and correct in person does not mean online reflects the same. What are they hiding or is this another form of civil regulation that is not really punishment but in reality is when they are blocked from reading it? What is the harm of the PFR accessing it? This hold or denial is their way of control over something and people that has no place. I realize in the large scheme of PFRs and CASOMB this may be seen as a small fish in a large pond of the fight. But, with all due respect, it is a major fish that has no need to be in the pond any further and should be ground for fertilizer in the fight to gain PFR rights back.

This makes no sense. CA PFRs should be pissed about it enough to demand answers of CASOMB as to why this is the situation at the next meeting (or through their elected local state officials to ask of them in addition to asking if the legislators even know). I don’t know why the CA PFR masses here don’t launch their own wave onto Sacramento (in person, email, mail, calls) to find out the details and see about getting it changed. Why isn’t some media entity looking at this in totality to see what CA has blocked public access to in addition to this? What else are they sliding into new laws that no one is aware of? Where is the cry from Civil Rights activists?

No, having someone else access it for them is not an acceptable answer for reviewing it. I have read the issue as long as I have been a forum participant outside of CA, but still have not really understood why this is allowed to happen.

This article is 5.5. years old, but the principle is the same of creating exemptions to freedom the gov’t is taking from their people. Bullshit, I say, bullshit! Denver Post, Sept 18, 2017: Across the U.S., states try to block access to public records

There are legitimate security concerns when it comes to matters of gov’t and then there is abuses of the people when it comes to claiming exemptions to freedoms. This is an abuse as far as I can see it which needs to stop.

20 years!!!!

LETS GOOOOO

Yes, you offend once and with no repeat offenses, actually get off!

See you on Tuesday!

How about allowing expungement of misdemeanor cp offenses.
Makes little sense to not allow that when literally every other misdemeanor offense can be

Janice, would you like to weigh in on this?

Last edited 1 year ago by Lone Ranger

Thank you ACSOL and Janice! Great work!

And furthermore, when CASOMB makes its recommendation, and if the legislature balks at the idea, just show them this article. This author puts it better than I ever could. https://filtermag.org/public-sex-offender-registry/

From the article:

Also during those discussions, CASOMB determined that “deeper study” is required before they can make a recommendation regarding either the reduction of PC 288(c) offenses to Tier 2 or attempted offenses to Tier 1. CASOMB will not pursue the lack of tier assignments or delays in updating records within the California Department of Justice (CA DOJ).

During the meeting, the CASOMB members expressed a general consensus that registrants who live in the community for 20 years and do not re-offend should not be required to register. The members asked the committee to study this factor in order to determine how it could be used when CASOMB makes recommendations regarding Tiered Registry Law improvements to the legislature.

I’m confused about the necessity of a “deeper study”. The state can use fear mongering to elevate any specific sex crime without scientific support, but CASOMB must conduct the years long scientific study why the state changed the level of scrutiny for a couple of sex crimes from where once they were low level? This makes absolutely no sense except that it’s fear mongering that pushing legislation. This is akin to those registrants who earned 1203.4 and got off the registry before the implementation of 290.007. After the passing of 290.007, 1203.4 had been denied de-registration and forced to go to a higher threshold of rehabilitation via the Certificate of rehabilitation. There is no scientific support for the increase in time of being on the registry for 1203.4. Legislation via fear mongering, and without scientific backing, should be deemed an attack in civil liberties!

Then the idea of those not re-offending should not be required to register isn’t a new idea. Dr. Karl Hanson, the inventor of the Static-99 the state uses, already did the research that identified 17 years was the max amount of surveillance time needed for a sex offender. Why can’t we use 17 years as the max term, which has been scientifically studied by the same Dr. they’re using the Static-99 assessment for the state?

“76 petitions were denied”
I wonder about the circumstances in these cases. And I wonder about the standards being applied, courts’ reasoning. I don’t imagine there’s published case law yet on this stuff…

Anyone who is EIGHTY years old should not be required to register!