CA Court Denies Government’s Demurrer

Source: ACSOL

A judge in Los Angeles Superior Court today denied a demurrer filed by the government in a case that challenges CDCR’s blanket policy that requires all registrants on parole to continue treatment the entire time they are on parole.  Treatment includes group counseling, individual counseling and/or polygraph examinations.

According to the lawsuit, CDCR’s policy is in violation of state law because that law requires CDCR to assess on a case-by-case basis whether a registrant requires more than one year of treatment.  The state law also allows superior court judges to end registrants’ treatment after one year.

After denying the demurrer, the court set a trial date of June 14, 2024, for the merits of this case.  That is when the judge will decide whether to issue an order requiring CDCR to revise its blanket policy.

“Today’s decision is an important step for more than 5,000 registrants on parole,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci.  “While not a final decision, it could lead to the elimination of needless treatment for those registrants.

In its legal briefs, the government argued that individual registrants should be required to file their own lawsuits if they believe their treatment should be terminated.  The judge rejected this argument and noted that a large number of lawsuits regarding this issue would not be in the best interests of the court.

The court also rejected the government’s argument that CDCR’s regulations on this subject are consistent with state law.  In addition, the court noted that CDCR has a ministerial duty to conduct individuals assessments of registrants on parole in order to continue their requirement for treatment.

Download the  demurrer document:

Order Overruling Demurrer – Dec 2023

 

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

 

  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. 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.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. 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.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. 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.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. 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.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. 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.
  23. 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.  
 

29 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

This is a great win for ACSOL and registrants!

When you consider that court-mandated counseling in most cases is nothing more than shaming without true healing and rehabilitation, the entire system needs a complete overhaul!

Great progress! How does this translate to people convicted federally? I have been told that I “graduated” treatment 7 years ago yet am still required to submit to polygraph testing every 6 months after 10 years of probation with zero incidents or violations. Not only does being forced to endure heinous questions that are unrelated to my crime feel like torture, it triggers my PTSD from my childhood as a victim myself. Which seems like it goes against the mission of treatment.

Today a trial court judge denied a government demurrer which is rare. In most cases, trial court judges grant government demurrers and leave it up to the petitioner/plaintiff to appeal the decision if they have the resources to do so. The judge in this case viewed the issues clearly and did not let the government get off the hook. We are looking forward to the trial in June 2024.

“Sex offender treatment” is an absolute joke. Most are simply substance abuse programs substituting sex and children for drugs and alcohol. It has nothing to do with mental health. It’s merely more eyes and ears for the parole/probation officer and a convenient avenue to revoke at will.

And considering that the same people are running in and out of the drug courts every year and sentenced to the same programs, it boggles the mind that a court system that apparently believes the only thing on a registrant’s mind is committing his next sex offense would require the same demonstrably failed “treatment” programs.

I completed my “treatment” program by submitting formal ethics complaints against every single private medical and mental health organization the provider belonged to*. It struck a nerve somewhere because the provider rocketed me through their stupid program afterward.

A couple of months later, my PO told me I still had to take polygraphs twice a year. I replied that we’d have to have to go to court with that to clear up if polygraphs were a court requirement or a “treatment” one. I also told the PO that I had several opinions written by several judges in the circuit, including my sentencing judge, that acknowledged summarily that polygraphs are nonsense and I would be bringing those opinions to the hearing on this issue, along with a very detailed account of my rather tumultuous history with the PO’s preferred polygraphists. I was pretty sure the judge wouldn’t want his name on anything saying polygraphs were unreliable garbage in court but somehow still golden in sex offender cases. A few days later I got a text saying don’t worry about it.

* ATSA (Association for the Treatment and Prevention of Sexual Abuse) was particularly inept. When I first submitted my complaints to them, they first claimed that the providers were not members. I then advised them that the providers advertised themselves as such, and only then did they agree to “investigate.” Around 6 months later, having heard nothing, I emailed them again for an update. They only said my complaints were unfounded and asked if I had received their results in the mail. I did not and they asked for my address. I told them they had my address in the same email chain we were conversing in and it hasn’t changed. They asked me to confirm, I told them it was correct. They asked again and I told them never mind – it was pretty clear that my matter was swept under the rug and they likely deleted every email I sent them. It became obvious to me that their organization is nothing more than a pretty name and logo to adorn their members’ letterheads.

⭐⭐ Very good news! ⭐⭐
But, at the same time, it is sad and ridiculous that the suit even needed to be filed against CDCR. 😡 If it were anything else – substance use, anger management, etc – then Done would mean DONE! But because it relates to sexual offenses, the CDCR and its probation/parole lackeys will go to ridiculous lengths attempting to cover their own butts for fear of a re-offense. 😡
Bah! AND Humbug! 😡

Last edited 7 months ago by David🔱

Will this impact individuals on probation? Many of the individuals in these programs are on probation and not parole. Also, the issue of a mandated treatment program repetition after being convicted of an unrelated offense should be addressed.

This is great news. I live in Tennessee and have a dear friend who has attended classes for years and is required to continue. I surely wish there was more advocacy in my state.

While this is fantastic news, I wish it was sooner…
Moreno Valley just got a new treatment provider “HOPE” after they outbid Sharper Future for the contract. I was formerly in the Maintenence Phase (2x a month) and was supposed to proceed to Phase One (1x Month/Quarterly Individual) at Sharper. Had my intake interrogation at HOPE today and was informed they’re not going to honor previous treatment. So, now many of us are back at weekly sessions or 2x week. Absolutely discouraged.

Unfortunately iam a under this treatment i been on parole for almost 7 years and been to hundreds of classes. I have no violations and study income and a roof over my head.i been miss lead with false requirements to get to there maintainance faze or get my sentence reduced. Iam very successful and a productive citizen and would like to move forward with my liberty and be a responsible father.This has been on going and the treatment has caused more stress then it helps due to being manipulated or legally threatened i would be arrested for my actions if i don’t attend i have done these classes to the point its becoming redundant. Iam recoverd and like to help others in my same situation