CASOMB Recommends Tier Reductions!

The California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) today approved two tier reductions that would benefit thousands of individuals convicted of either felony possession of child pornography or lewd or lascivious acts with a person 14 or 15 years old.  CASOMB is expected to share the news of its approvals with the state legislature later this calendar year.  The changes will not become law, however, until the legislature passes a bill that includes CASOMB’s approvals.

Specifically, CASOMB today approved the reduction from Tier 3, the highest tier, to Tier 1, the lowest tier, for individuals convicted of felony possession and/or distribution of child pornography.  The board’s approval is based in large part upon the fact that the federal government assigns to Tier 1 individuals convicted of those offenses.  CASOMB also approved the reduction from Tier 3 to Tier 2 for those convicted of PC 288(c)(1). 

During today’s meeting, CASOMB did not approve the creation of opportunities to petition for individuals assigned to Tier 3.  Instead, the board delayed a vote on this proposed change until a committee provides the board with additional information.  CASOMB suggested, however, that it would approve this change if exceptions were created for individuals such as those designated as sexually violent predators.

“Today CASOMB took two significant steps toward improving the Tiered Registry Law,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci.  “We look forward to their approval of creating opportunities for individuals assigned to Tier 3 to petition for removal from the registry.”

CASOMB’s consideration of changes to the Tiered Registry Law began in January 2023 when ACSOL made a presentation to that board asking for a total of seven changes to the Tiered Registry Law.  So far, CASOMB has agreed to consider three of those changes and has indicated the board may be willing to consider additional changes in the future.

Also during today’s CASOMB meeting, the board received reports from the California Department of Justice (CA DOJ) and the Department of Adult Parole Operations (DAPO).  According to CA DOJ, the total number of registrants is 105,793 of whom 77,226 are living outside of jail and prison.  Of that total, there are 19,552 registrants in violation and 6,600 registrants who are homeless.  CA DOJ also reported that 7,005 petitions for removal from the registry have been filed so far.  Of that total, there are 5,050 petitions that have been granted, 99 petitions that have been denied, 342 petitions that have been dismissed and 1,514 petitions that are pending consideration by a court.

DAPO reported that there are 6,730 registrants on parole.  Of that total, there are 3,552 registrants who are considered high risk.

Related: Janice’s Journal: The Glass Is Half Full

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.  
 

178 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Great news like this makes me wish there was a fighter like Janice in Illinois. I have tried my best to encourage my state’s registry organization to do something of note, but it’s ignored. Sad.

So I was convicted (federally) of cp possession, enticement of a minor, and use of an interstate facility to transmit info about a minor (stemming from the online chats) way back almost 20 years ago. I moved out of state a few years ago out of fear of being classified to tier 3 for the possession. Can anyone theorize how this might affect me? It might be worth moving back if these changes pass.

Truly outstanding work Janice! This is a homerun for my situation. So just wondering if they pass this into law and I no longer show up on the Megan’s law website. Who does now know your a registrant? I got kicked from FB and AirBnb. Would I then be able to notify them and tell them I am not a registrant and they cannot check it? How would this work?

Hello!

I have tried to leave a message here twice, don’t know what happened, but hopefully third time is the charm?

To make a long story short:
I have been a 290 registrant since 2006 & I was ecstatic when SB384 came along! I thought I would for sure be a tier 1!
Well, happiness turned to nightmare! I got designated a tier 3 for one of my charges being a 311.4(c). My attorney told me, “don’t worry, just plead no contest, they all carry the same sentence & will be ran concurrently… My God how wrong she was! The only charge that cannot be reduced & now the ONLY thing that keeps me from being a tier 1!

I did relatively no jail time, a smooth parole, was awarded exclusion from Megan’s list (due to non violence & age) and I have been a productive member of society while following all 290 rules for the last 17 years!

It was quite a shock when I found out about the tier designation, but I am patiently waiting for lawmakers to come to reason and fix this issue. But now I have received a letter from the state saying that, due to SB384, they are rescinding my exclusion from Megan’s List!!

So, for the first time ever, after being free and off of the website for 17 years, I will now be placed on it! I have done nothing wrong for them to make this change, they just up and decided to ruin my life for absolutely no reason! I have been a law abiding citizen and compliant for 17 years, but now I can’t be trusted?

somebody please help me with this? Can we make sure that Janice and her team see this? Has anyone else been affected like this? I am at such a loss! I called Sacramento & the DOJ, wrote emails, absolutely no response for a week now!

Thank you to anyone who can point me in the right direction or offer some kind advice.

Thank you all for your support and your help!

Although this is a terrible boat to be in, at least I know there are others onboard who are looking for answers as well.

The last thing I would ever want to do is incite or encourage any squabbling between the folks messaging here, so let’s not fight amongst ourselves and tear each other down because we may need to lean on each other for support some day.

Thank you all once again! I will definitely look further into all the information given and I will definitely try to reach out and message Janice privately as well.

Attached is a link directly to Megan’s Law and the Use of Risk Assessment tools. It clearly states that CA uses 4 risk assessment, and the Static-99R is only one of them. The Stable 2007 measures dynamic factors. Why is that one not considered when tiering people? Per SB384, it says they utilize the SARATSO, which stands for “State Authorized Risk Assessment Tool For Sex Offenders”. The SARATSO is comprised of both the STATIC-99R AND the STABLE 2007. They mistakenly refer to the SARATSO as the “STATIC” tool when it should be “STATE”. They blatantly ignore the DYNAMIC tool. Furthermore, in this link, it says AGAIN that a risk score roughly halves after just 5 years (Karl Hansen even says after 2 years). Don’t click on the link if you are not allowed to access ML. https://www.meganslaw.ca.gov/SexOffenders_RiskAssessment.aspx

I have a question about the Tier 1. I’m on parole right now and my conviction date was January of 2013. When does the 10 years start? After the conviction date or the date your off parole?

How on earth do we even know if a person is eligible for petition of removal? My spouse was charged with 311.11a but it is a federal charge. Does that mean he is ineligible? The local police department said they do not understand why he can’t get it removed since he’s been on for the number of years, remained in good standing as a citizen and completed all legal obligations.