CASOMB Approves Tiered Registry Law Recommendations

The California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) today formally approved several recommended changes to the Tiered Registry Law.  The changes include (1) reduction from Tier 3 to Tier 1 for those convicted of felony possession of child pornography and (2) reduction from Tier 3 to Tier 2 for those convicted of lewd or lascivious acts with a 14 or 15 year old.  In addition, CASOMB approved reduction from Tier 3 to Tier 2 for those convicted of three offenses involving communications with a minor – PC 288.2, PC 288.3 and PC 288.4.
“Today’s vote by the board does not automatically change the Tiered Registry Law,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci.  “It does, however, start a process that could end in the legislature changing that law.”
According to CASOMB, recommended changes to the Tiered Registry Law will be included in its annual report which will be finalized during its next meeting to be held in person in Pasadena on January 18, 2024.  CASOMB will not meet in December 2023.  Copies of CASOMB’s annual report will be sent to all members of the state legislature.
CASOMB did not vote today on the creation of an off-ramp for those assigned to Tier 3, however, several CASOMB members stated their strong support for addressing this change in the future.  According to one CASOMB member, creation of an off-ramp for those assigned to Tier 3 is “far more complex” than changing tier assignments.  For example, he noted that there are individuals currently assigned to Tier 3 who have been designated as sexually violent predators, convicted of forcible rape and other violent offenses.
Also during today’s meeting, it was reported that a total of 7,401 petitions for removal from the registry have been filed.  Of that total 5,401 petitions have been granted, 105 petitions have been denied and 384 petitions have been dismissed.  In addition, there are 1,481 petitions that are pending a court decision.
Further, the California Department of Justice (CA DOJ) today reported that there was a slight decrease in the number of individuals required to register (from 105,755 to 105,738).  However, the agency reported that there were slight increases in the number of individuals who have failed to register (from 19,563 to 19,599) as well as the number of homeless registrants (from 6,643 to 6,647).

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 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.
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

Excellent progress and well done Janice and ACSOL. One more rung in the ladder as you help us climb out of the registry hole. Thank you!

Good news. I hope the next thing they take up is anything misdemeanor. Whether by original charge or 17b, misdemeanors shouldn’t be anything but Tier 1. In either case, it’s often at the judges discretion, which means the judge found the person to be on the low pole of dangerousness. And to have these sit above felonies on the registry is plain wrong, especially if “safety” is the supposed goal.

Last edited 3 months ago by SR

This is excellent news! It would be very helpful if the specific code sections that have been suggested are listed here by ACSOL.

The irony of CASOMB needing more studies for the Tier 3 off-ramp, when I think we all know that zero studies were used to put together all the tiers in the first place.

I have to admit, I had my doubts. So it was best to be quiet, and let Janice perform the miracles she has always been performing. We might have to wait until the primaries are over until the legislators take a serious look at this proposal.

I recently had a hearing to terminate my obligation to register and it was denied in San Bernardino county. Prior to the hearing I was given a letter/new tier assignment. I was originally tier 1 but changed to tier 2. I was informed by the district attorney prior to the hearing that my petition was going to be denied. During the hearing I hear errors. I inform the Judge that I disagree with some things and the Judge tells me he can post pone the hearing and I can come back with an attorney or he can make his decision and I can appeal. I had not read anything about an appeal for this type of hearing but I want one, so I chose option B. Does anyone know what forms to use? Or was I misinformed?

I live in Texas and it will be great for the registry to be abolished but, I doubt it.

I feel that a person who fallows the rules of registration should automatically be off the list they do the tier time because filing for a petition is a waste of time and money, some lawyers and judges just want to keep us on the registration list

Found a pdf that shows casomb recommends 288.2, 288.3 and 288.4 from Tier 3 to Tier 1. Not sure on the date but just thought that I would add this comment here seeing that the article above states Tier 2 was approved for these.

Please correct me if I’m wrong. I included the link to doe v. harris intervenors opening brief here.