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

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
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. 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.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. 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.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  19. 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.
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.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

ACSOL continues to fight against the tyranny of the registry.

This is a war, not a quick battle. We need to have patience as ACSOL continues its strategy, and we ALL need to take part in the specific actions ACSOL will recommend over the next months and years.

This is wonderful news! People are beginning to listen and respond rationally instead of emotionally. I watched Janice’s presentation to CASOMB when she made the original brilliant presentation.

These are two small steps, but more are coming. Legislators are beginning to pay attention to us when we go to Sacramento to lobby, and they are beginning to listen to facts rather than scare tactics. I know ACSOL will continue to fight for the other recommendations Janice originally made as well as other injustices until all registry laws are ruled unconstitutional as “cruel and unusual punishment.”

Please continue to support ACSOL by showing up, standing up, and speaking up whenever you can to help educate everyone about the injustices of the registry.

Wasn’t this registry development created to monitor sexually violent predators in the first place ? Not all registered citizens that otherwise cannot get off the registry because their code conviction are sexually violent predators! Sexually violent predators are usually labeled ‘sexually violent’ by the court upon their respective convictions. The term ‘sexually violent predator ’ is categorized as someone that is very violent and needs to be monitored indefinitely. I’m curious why the board didn’t ask ACSOL for a clearer study regarding this topic ;especially , if they were concerned about a blanket path way for tier 3 individuals to petition for removal . It seem to me the board could have cherry picked the pathway for tier 3 individuals to petition for removal by excluding the individuals deemed by the court as “sexually violent predator’ from petitioning for removal. I believe ACSOL needs to come up with a better approach regarding the request from the board regarding this matter before the board presents these recommendations to the legislature. I’m sure I’m speaking for a lot of individuals that share my concern regarding this very important topic . If I’m not mistaken doesn’t the federal government tier system also have a pathway for removal for those individuals whom aren’t deemed by the court as “sexually violent predators “? If so , how is that any different from their reasoning regarding their analogy regarding CP offenses and language used by the federal governments tier system?

That’s great news, but what about those who are Tier 3 based on an outdated and ridiculous risk score AND a 1203.4. How can one be considered rehabilitated and also deemed high risk? The offense in question did not even involve any children at all and was a non contact offense that has been expunged for years. Yet, he is in Tier 3 with full address exposure. Something does not seem right here.

All this movement in California is great. I have a question hopefully somebody smarter than me can answer. I live in Wisconsin, one charge, 10 counts possession only. I deregister in 2036. If I moved out there in 2035, how long would I have to register in California? 10 years before I could apply for deregistering? Or am I best off staying in Wisconsin, deregistering and then moving out there? I sure would love to take my Rubicon, out to the Rubicon trail! Thanks!

This is great new indeed. This government process is very slow. We now need a elected official to add this to a bill and get it voted on. The storm clouds are starting to fade but we aren’t done yet. Many volunteers have to been to Sacramento on everyone’s behalf talking to our elected officials. This is a slow process but we are hopefully seeing the tide turn. Thanks Janice for the update on all that YOU do.

Back in 2000 a cop got all up in my face and yelled I don’t care what anyone says, your gonna have register until the day you DIE !!
Believe it or not they both still work for riverside police 290 registration department, I was 18 at the time 🤔

Excellent news! The tiered registry was a victim of the political process by a hateful Assemblymember, Lorena Gonzalez. But in spite of her, we made that giant leap to a tiered registry, flawed as it was. This is a giant step towards righting some, but not all of the wrongs Ms Gonzalez inflicted. Janice repeatedly lobbied CASOMB to get these and other changes made. The fact that she got them to listen is huge. The fact that they agreed with some of our requests is highly significant. Now, we have to focus on getting the legislature to act. And we must continue to get CASOMB to act on our other requests. No one climbs a mountain in one step, but a series of incremental steps. I am looking forward to being part of the next steps.

Thank you Janice for all that YOU do.

HOLY BAT GUANO! THANK YOU GOD! (and screw god for putting us through this in the first place, so THANK JANICE!) As one New York Times supporter so eloquently put it “PRAISE GOD, FOR OUR VICTORY!)

Fantastic News Janice! I’m personally grateful and thankful for all the hard work that you and ACSOL has done to bring some fairness and justice for us everyday!

It was an emotional moment for me when I learned of CASOMB’s recommendation.  
I am the mother of a son who watched illegal images.  This new happening is a step toward making  a real difference in his life.
As we all know, the current laws are frivolous and draconian… We wish that at one stroke they could change.  It doesn’t seem that will happen.  
But Janice’s strategy of chipping away at injustice may eventually do the trick.
Thank you Janice… you are a true champion.

Well it’s good that they didn’t go with tier 2 for the CP offenses like they were contemplating. That would’ve been a bad deal. And, my suspicion is the only way to get it through the legislature is by telling them the registry will be found unconstitutional if it isn’t changed.

I’m anxious for this to come up for a vote in the Calfornia legislature, so we can compare notes to find out who voted for or against this measure. Maybe that will finally help put to rest this notion that there’s no difference between the two parties

This is very good news and shows all the hard work that Janice and colleagues have put in is making progress. If you need anyone to be your poster person for Zero chance of re-offense and the farthest thing from a Violent predator you could find, I volunteer! Maybe the Board needs real life testimonials from real life registrants.

This is fantastic news and each if these victories will lead winning the war. It’s like a march toward the cure for cancer.

As a lifetime Tier 3, I’m worried there’ll be a gotcha that keeps this chain around my neck.

“CASOMB suggested, however, that it would approve this change if exceptions were created for individuals such as those designated as sexually violent predators.”

I’m not an SVP, but I do wonder what other exceptions they want before approving an offramp for me and my fellow lifers?

Using CASOMB’s logic, why is the Static-99R used in California’s “tiered” registry? There is no mention of a “risk assessment” and/or “risk assessment instrument” in federal SORNA. 🤔 🧐

This seems like it might be VERY great news, even for me. I was not convicted in CA, but one of the charges is similar to possession, but I never actually possessed anything, never downloaded anything and in fact, never SAW anything. What I did was send a link for a rotating banner ad page and one of the banners that rotated through was a CP image. Don’t ask me what, never saw it. My other charge was sodomy because the victm was actually over the age of consent, they wanted to charge me with something, so they used sodomy.

When the Tier system came out, I was placed as Level 3 with no option to contest. Oddly enough when I first moved to CA, my convictions did not even warrant being placed on the website for a few years. Rules changed, not my crimes or convictions.

Anyway, I am not sure how this new rule will apply to out of state convictions that are similar to CP charges in CA.

It would be nice to eventually come off the CA registry before moving to Wisconsin, but until we figure out a way to purge the search engine databases, coming off the registry is a band-aid that has a leak. My convicting state sentenced me(their words, sentenced to….) ten years on the registry, then when our people started coming off, they changed it to 20, then when we started coming off, they just went to life.

Still a fantastic step in the right direction and I appreciate all the efforts by the ACSOL folks for tackling this battle.

Again, while this is such awesome news for a great many people, I’m wondering if there’s been any mention of 243.4(a) – which is basically sexual battery. I’m sure there’s probably thousands of us under that one and unfortunately somehow it’s a T3. I would have imagined this is one of those that should have been discussed to be lowered to at least T2.

Anyone have any thoughts? Janice?

“…would approve this change if exceptions were created for individuals such as those designated as sexually violent predators,” sounds like a really simple fix to me. And don’t shoot the messenger. My sympathies and apologies to any of you sexually violent predators.

Last edited 2 months ago by Just me

Janice just posted her journal article that answers some of your questions

What’s the legislators’ track record regarding implementation of CASOMB recommendations? This feels like a big win but my expectations are greatly tempered by similar recommendations made by other informed parties (such as the Sentencing Commission recommendations at the federal level and Model Penal Code put out by the American Law Institute).

I’ve had to do this crap since 1990. I’ve watched 290 change so much over that time. For me, It feels like Charlie Brown kicking the foothall while Lucy holds it. Because the charge I was convicted alleged the use of force or fear, none of the recent changes benefit me. In 1997 Lucy yanked the football from my grasp so to speak when California did away with a path to a COR and required a governor pardon moving forward and applied it retroactively. I was 6 months away from qualifying. I tried to file early and the judge wouldn’t hear the case.

Does the reduction from tier 3-lifetime to tier 1 count if there was a probation violation that resulted in prison time? The prison time (none was actually served) resulted in being excluded from the ability to petition with current laws.
Thank you so much for everything your organization has been doing.

What about 288.2 (a sting) I took a deal (9 months county) since the DA said they were going for 21 years (dumbest thing I ever did) and it put me into tier 3. Since then I have had it reduced to a misdemeanor and then expunged (in less than 5 years). But I can’t get off the list cause I remain in tier 3. Is there anything that is being discussed that creates a pathway for those who had their (wobbler) felony charges reduced and expunged?

People v. Monzoor should be read and addressed by those who are seeking a lower tier after being granted a 17(b). The Court ruled that a reduction does not put you in a lower tier. It is rather based on the original conviction. The hope in the wording is that the Court did take note that in Monzoor the defendant’s tier assignment as a felony would of stayed the same (before the tiered law and after) as a tier 3.
If our tier assignment has changed since the tiered law became active, one could argue that it is a different set of facts. I am surprised this case has not been addressed. Many people were given reductions and new tier assignments but this may put a stop to it.