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
Holy smokes! This is huge for cp offenses. All the bad mouth calling by certain commentors saying its not worth it were unfounded.
Congratulations California and to you Janice.
Bummer about Tier 3. But as Janice stated, I look forward to the day that changes
What about federal receipt? That’s usually handled like distribution….are receipt charges included in this recommendation?
Great news! When we get the law written can we please make sure it includes 288c1 misdemeanor as tier 1?
I would like to see the Tiered Registry law amended to remove the requirement to register for Tier 2 automatically if the registrant has been on the registery for 30+ years
Yes, this is good news. Would like to know the reasoning why some petitions were denied and some were dismissed.
CASOMB needs to be hammered for a Tier 3 exit and why Tiers 2 & 3 are so long when statistics says otherwise for those classified within them.
I am excited but with trepidation
until someone can confirm that I read this correctly
did the CASOMB approve the measure that someone convicted of moving those convicted of 288c 14 & 15 year old from Tier 3 to Tier 2?
sorry we have awaited this for so long, I would really appreciate if someone could confirm if I read this correctly
Regardless, we all are forever grateful to Janice Bellucci for her leadership and tireless effort to bring fairness to SO laws and regulations
Thank you ACSOL. I’m curious how any of this affects federal charges of “reciept” of cp. One might think that one can only possess or distribute cp if they previously “received” or produced it. But the charge lies between possession and production. It’s not a more harmful crime than possession but carries a greater sentence. It doesn’t even need to be in one’s possession. The original intent was that receipt was to cover participation in conspiracies (production, distribution, receipt). But that intent was lost on prosecuters long ago. Now it’s just a tool for longer incarceration.
Wow… thank you Janice.
Thank you Janice and all of the ACSOL team. I have had some medical challenges that I am making great progress on and have not been able to attend the meetings but do follow updates. Todays update concerning 288 (C) 1 and its reduction to tier 2 was a great change for me personally. I hope to call tomorrow and speak with Janice and thank her. I would amazing it is still to early to address how I can now be removed from registry as I have past my 10 year or more since conviction. Perhaps I can get a response here. Thanks again. God Bless
How likely will the legislature sign this to law? I might be able to see my kids graduate highschool if this becomes real.
Thanks again Janice and ACSOL team. I am so relived that the 288(c) 1 will be reduced to tier 2 and open the door to being removed from registry.
I would like to see something done for those of us former Californians who meet all the requirements for removal other than the fact we no longer reside in California and have therefore been denied the long awaited opportunity to finally be removed from the registry. Members of Congress have no incentive to change the law because we’re not constituents. Surely we must be of some consideration to the groups who are doing such a great work on behalf of the registry laws and registrants .
HUGE NEWS~ Way to go Janice!! What is do you think is a realistic time frame for the legislature to move on something like this? You thinking 2024? 2025?
THANK YOU!! Thank you, Janice and thank you, ACSOL! Thank you!!
Can someone help me understand how 288.4 has a tier 3 punishment when the person solicited was 17 and now this 288 crime against someone 15 or under is being dropped to tier 2? My husband is being convincing NV but we live in CA and I am terrified of how CA will translate his crime to CA PC. It looks like they’d put him at Tier 3.
This is excellent news, but will it require a major lobby-day effort for the California legislature to actually implement the recommended changes?
Great step in the right direction, I just hope everyone on Tier 3 can also get some relief in the near future. While I did not commit a contact offense, I don’t feel in any way “superior” to those who did, and want everyone forced to register to have an equal opportunity for a better life.
Will people with police stings and no victims be impacted? As of now 288.4b which will still remain Tier 3 even if this approval becomes law. No victims no illegal images first time offense and am a tier 3…hope this can also change.
Also under SORNA which is federal this is considered a tier 1. Wish this would have been brought up to CASOMB too.
This is wonderful news! I pray that legislators will act on CASOMB’S recommendations and soon they will become law!
Overall, a very good move. However, related to the delay in considering Tier 3 for opportunities to get off the registry, how will “sexually violent predator” status be determined? Will this be just those who were once convicted in a civil commitment trial or will this also include people not convicted of “sexual violence” but whose conviction was for someone under fourteen? Or will this determination be made in advance of considering registration relief by “SOTP” type evaluators and predicated on such things as “preferential minor-attraction,” one of the criteria frequently cited as being indicative of “sexual violence.” Or, will it only be determined by actual violence, e.g. forcing someone to do something that they don’t want to do?
By the way, “sexual violence” is not a term we should be using unless we know what it means. We should not be carrying the state’s deeply ambiguous messages for them when they are used to mis-characterize and malign members of our community. There is one reform guy and registrant whom I won’t name who frequently uses the term “sexual violence” on Twitter, even in cases where no violence has been used. He’s a lawyer, to boot, and should know better. This is wrong.
Do we know what code sections, specifically?
That’s just awesome news for a great many folks and their families.
Janice the Miracle Worker. We in California are so blessed to have Janice fighting for us. And the successes we have here could be a precedent for the rest of the country. Thank you, thank you, thank you for all you do.