ACSOL demanded today that the California Department of Justice (CA DOJ) remove from the state’s Megan’s Law website the profiles of every individual that lack two important pieces of information — year of conviction and year of release. The demand was sent to Attorney General Rob Bonta, who leads that agency, by email and U.S. mail.
“We believe that the California Megan’s Law website is in violation of state law which requires that profiles on that website include the year in which a person was convicted as well as the year in which they were released from custody,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci. “Without that information, people who look at the profiles of more than 3,000 individuals are likely to assume that the person in the profile recently committed his offense.”
The letter demands that the profiles in question be removed from the website no later than September 30. If that deadline is not met, litigation could be pursued.
“We filed a similar lawsuit in November 2015 when more than 70 percent of the profiles lacked the required information,” stated Bellucci. “That lawsuit was settled in August 2016 when the California Department of Justice agreed in writing to add the information required by state law.”
The letter cites as an example of CA DOJ’s failure to comply with state law the profile of an individual who was convicted in 1977 and released in 1982. His profile does not include either his year of conviction or his year of release. In addition, his profile states “The Department of Justice has no information about a subsequent felony incarceration for this registrant.”
Download the letter (PDF):
Letter to AG Bonta – Sep 202309052023
So happy to hear this! Thank you for all your good works!
Megan’s law website if someone fair and does absolutely no good! Murderers who were lifers are now being released, and no one is tracking them or putting their name on the internet after they’re off parole!
So does this mean those with 1203.4 and similar will be removed from the website since the newly enacted law prohibits this type of information to be disseminated to the general public? The new law does not have any exceptions for registrants.
As I legally cannot view my page on the ML website, I have no idea if I would be included in this lawsuit. Year of conviction and release should both be 2012. If they don’t have it, feel free to publicly add my name to the litigant list.
Janice is unbelievable. I don’t even live in CA but am thankful she is calling these injustices out on behalf of all registrants. Love the badass letter! Keep up the good work!
Next it should be just for the whole thing to be shut down because of the CONSTANT HATE CRIMES AGINST US. NO COMPROMISE.
Maybe can find a way to remove EVERYONE from the list. Let’s find a loophole, it gotta be there somewhere..
Awesome letter, Janice! Thank you for having our backs!
My God, what incompetent a**holes. I guess that is government for you. I love the fact too how they ignore and flaunt laws and court rulings. They’ve been breaking the law for more than a decade. Apparently laws and court rulings only apply to people who can be sufficiently demonized and attacked. Others just have “excuses” that are fine.
How hard is it to manage such a simple database?! It’s ridiculous. The data must simply be missing. Can’t they whine and cry to everyone about how the glorious Registries are not following the law and how it is so, so important that they are accurate to “protect children”? Aren’t those lies working any longer?
They need to just blow some more taxpayer resources and get that data in their database. How hard could that be? Hire some high school flunkies. Do some paper work.
And do PFRs really have to pay in order to get the criminal regime to fix incorrect information?! That’s insane. You’d think the criminals would want their Registry to be accurate. You’d also think that if a PFR told them that “information X” is inaccurate that they criminals would have the accurate information right in their hands or at a very minimum, easily be able to get it. Otherwise, what kind of pathetic regime are they running? They don’t know the right information and can’t get it yet they want people to believe their lies that their Registries are glorious? That they’ll “protect children”. The only thing being protected is their jobs.
Lastly, I just have to say that CA’s Registry employees/”people” are apparently very natural, innate a**holes and probably just can’t get past that. Why would anyone even feel the need to say, “The Department of Justice has no information about a subsequent felony incarceration for this registrant.”? That’s like me walking around saying, “I have no information about felonies recently committed by Todd Spitzer.” Or better, “I have no information about felonies recently committed by CA’s Registry employees.”
Way to go, Janice! I do remember that lawsuit about the state correcting the information. Eight years later, the state still hasn’t fixed it. I’m grateful you showed the state the receipt!
It’s odd to know that registrants cannot look at their own public profile to see if the information is correct. The Information Practices Act of 1977 gives a citizen that right to look at their own public profile to ensure the information is correct. The IPA of 1977 is an extension of right to privacy that includes information pertaining to the California citizen.
Not being able to look at your own information is a protected right that isn’t extended to the registrant class. There are many rights and immunity benefits that are not extended to the registrant class such as 1203.4 (case and info/accusation are dismissed). The old SORNA law recognized if one had a case dismissal, then the defendant is no longer part of the registry. Technically, the old SORNA law is current law due to the PLF injunction.
I see that demand letter focuses on including the date of conviction and date of release. Good stuff for sure; but, the letter only makes a reference to the statement, “The Department of Justice has no information about a subsequent felony incarceration for this registrant,” without demanding that that statement be re-worded. Because that statement could easily be interpreted to mean that there [is] another offense, but the DOJ just doesn’t have the information available. I apologize ahead of time if anyone already made that point.
The Megan Law web site should be shut down. It is a terrible waste of money without purpose and a generator of great harm.sens
The tier system is a great indicator and measure of the continuous punishment inflicted upon citizens of this country /state.
In a related issue concerning the accuracy of information on the registry, is anyone familiar with the following information?
As a Tier II registrant, Mr. ___’s home address should not be on the website. Penal Code section 290.46(c)(1) states:
With respect to a person who has been convicted of the commission or the attempted commission of any of the offenses listed in, or who is otherwise described in, paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 290 and who is a tier two offender, and with respect to a person who has been convicted of the commission or the attempted commission of Section 647.6, the Department of Justice shall make available to the public via the internet website the person’s name and known aliases, a photograph, a physical description, including gender and race, date of birth, criminal history, the community of residence and ZIP Code in which the person resides or the county in which the person is registered as a transient, and any other information that the Department of Justice deems relevant, but not the information excluded pursuant to subdivision (a) or the address at which the person resides, except that information about persons required to register as a result of an adjudication as a ward of the juvenile court pursuant to Section 290.008 shall not be made available on the internet website.
The government claims the registry serves a public safety interest by providing accurate information about registrants to the public.This is an important point because the Supreme Court will sometimes limit individual rights for the sake of promoting public safety. However, as we see here, there is inaccurate information on the registry. And this is information that should have been cleaned up some time ago. Another example is the risk levels of registrants, which are based on the Static 99 test scores dating back to whenever a registrant was tested. That might have been has long ago as the pre sentencing evaluation. A person’s Static 99 score will decrease just with age and there could be other factors too. Also, someone’s risk score could increase too and that’s equally important to note and disseminate to the public if you believe providing accurate is important for public safety. But they don’t do it. I think these examples undermine the public safety argument for keeping the registry.
What is the plan if they have dates on one of the charges, but not the other, but even on the charges they have a date for its incorrect? According to a friend who checked for us, my page shows a conviction date (which is correct) and release date (which is incorrect as I served 2years 4 months and it shows the same year I was convicted as release date) and second charge with no dates of any kind?
Hi, that’s good news, but what I want to know is why isn’t the Doj (the person or dept responsible for info) being brought up on charges. The Doj, Gov. shouldn’t be shielded from being charged. They’re humans just like the rest of us, but if a registered sex offender goes on Megan’s website you’ll be arrested? For looking at a website give me a break, what are they afraid of? They’re afraid we will find all the lies, disceet and mistakes (or on purpose). Why isn’t the laws only enacted based on real evidence and not somebody’s opinion, yet they want you to trust them, yeah right.
Wondering if anything came about from the letter that was sent?
Thank God for Janice! I have suffered from this problem for years and had to have someone access the website to see if it was corrected or not. My case goes back to 1993. Im uncertain if my time of offense and release was added.