Source: ACSOL
A new bill was introduced on January 12, 2026, that could reduce the number of petitions granted that remove individuals from the registry. The bill number is AB 1568 and the author of the bill is Assemblyman Juan Alanis, a Republican, who represents Modesto and other nearby communities. Alanis is co-chair of the Assembly Public Safety Committee.
If AB 1568 becomes law, it would add three additional requirements to a person who petitions from removal from the registry. First, the person would be required to prove that they have completed sex offender treatment. Second, the person petitioning for removal from the registry would be required to appear in a court hearing if the District Attorney objected to his petition. Third, the court would be required to consider whether the offender was in a position of trust or authority in relation to the victim at the time of the offense.
“This bill, if passed, could significantly reduce the number of petitions granted,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci. “For example, there are registrants who were not required to undergo treatment for a variety of reasons who would be prevented from petitioning for removal from the registry.”
AB 1568 has been tentatively scheduled for a hearing before the Assembly Public Safety Committee on February 12. ACSOL will post on a later date proposed talking points regarding this bill and ask individuals to contact members of that committee prior to the hearing date.
So, presumably, to the point of whether the person was in a position of authority or not will be a disqualifier if they were?
Juan Alanis is the Vice-Chair, not the Co-Chair of the Public Safety Committee. This legislation, if passed would significantly reduce the number of registrants released from registration requirements. Of the nine members of the Public Safety Committee, two are Republicans, so Alanis needs three Democrats to join him on this to get it though committee. To get those three votes, he needs to demonstrate that there a problem which needs a solution. I am unaware of the problem, but my guess is that Alanis is looking for things to talk about during the campaign. (Note: this kind of legislation never comes up in even-numbered years)
I am petitioning to come off the registry after Aug of next year after having lose language defining “custody”. Considering that I already qualify now, would this mean I’m effectively waiting for nothing?
This may be a blessing in disguise, because if I manage to get off the registry, it means I am stuck in California for the rest of my life.
But if I’m forced to register for the remainder of my life, then it’s just a matter of finding a new State that would better serve my needs as an American citizen trying to find a place I can pretend is free.
The only good news is that Republican’s cant’ seem to get anything done in California, which could be a good thing here. We know the Democrats in power are against more penalties for criminals.
This is so discouraging. My husband has been living in a trailer park in CA for a year still waiting for a tier assignment for a 1986 non-California conviction while I’m in my home state just so he can petition for relief. We can’t sell our home or do anything until we know he is off the registry. The expense is killing us financially. I hate to think that these past 12 months have all been for naught. Of course he didn’t complete CA therapy— he completed it in our home state.
And it’s election year.
First, “treatment” is usually part of the sentence, so it can be assumed that “treatment” was undergone at least twice – once in prison and again on parole/probation. And if it wasn’t part of the sentence and the petitioner had been offense free long enough for the petition to be filed, what exactly needs to be “treated”?
Second, shouldn’t it be the DA asking for a hearing if he opposes it? Wouldn’t such a hearing already require the petitioner’s presence? Is this provision really necessary, especially when considering that all DAs will oppose all petitions “just because”?
And third, the petitioner’s relation to the victim was already considered by the convicting court at sentencing. What is the relevance of said relationship to registry removal?
This bill is several levels of stupid, and likely just another example of political grandstanding of a state legislator seeking to make a name for himself outside his district.
This is outrageous. Just as I enter the final 3 years of my 20 years. I booked my plane ticket to be there and Stand Up and Speak Out. This is not really financially affordable to me, but I rather be broke and off the Registry than on it and have a few hundred dollars more to my name. I hope many, many others will join me in Sacramento. They are just throwing a few more hurdles and more ways for the District Attorneys to object. I am guessing that the County DAs are sponsoring this bill.
Is this the same Juan Alanis that was a 27-year cop? Shame on him and the power behind him.
Pandering for votes with solutions that have no problems to solve in an election year while busting ex post facto with item #1 if the wants to apply it to everyone registered at the time of application. What does it matter if the person was in a position of trust?
This bill should be dead and dusted immediately through the first committee in Sactown. If it does unbelievably pass let’s sue the day after. Basic stuff, estoppel and res judicata. Donation on deck.
What a punch in the gut, right before Lobby Day. : (
where is the new legislation where all misdemeanors are put into tier one? nowhere in the current legislation does it say “based on your original conviction” you belong in so-and-so tier
How much is Sharper Future paying him?
I just read the proposal of AB 1568. I highly oppose it. First, a piece of paper that shows a typed message that a client completed a course of treatment really does not mean anything. The therapist and the client are saying a lot of things we should all learn. But the real test is seeing what we actually do outside in the real world. Second, the district attorney is in my view is biased. The district attorney mostly likes to deny release from any restraints like probation, parole, or prison or anything else. Third, the relation of the perpetrator to the victim should not matter in my opinion. Whether the perpetrator is a boyfriend or an uncle or whatever, overall they are in general people the victim may or may not know. Ultimately the registrant is responsible for himself and has the power to control his own thoughts and behavior. We should just simply be released.
Its frustrating how the “completion” of treatment doesn’t make a person considered less of a threat but not completing it makes them considered more of a threat.
Does not CA vs Thai render this legislation obsolete?
As others have mentioned, most have had sex treatment as a part of their sentence. If not, then their sentencing happened before the implementation or come from another state. Still, 10-years or more of being clean is more than enough proof of rehabilitation that is stronger than a paper that says you attended sex treatment therapy.
In CA vs Thai, the burden of proof to negate relief from the registry is upon the DA. It is the DA that will have to request for updated sex treatment therapy at the cost of the tax payer. If the cost is shifted the petitioner by mandatory legislation, then it has added an extortionary fine just to petition off the registry.
On a tangent of sex treatment therapy, I would be leery that the state would create yet another sex treatment therapy as a part of the registration petition exit program. Why have another one when if the petitioner has been recidivist free for 10 or 20 years? It is unnecessary to force registrants to pay even more money when being re-offense free for a decade is proof. By research, the longer a registrant doesn’t recidivate, then the recidivism rate correspondingly drops.
This qualifier of “position of trust” is a facetious barrier to regaining freedom. The punishment/penalty of the case was already levied at sentencing. Remember, the purpose of the registry was due to recidivism. Re-visiting the case as a point of contention belies the purpose of the registry. SB-384 awards registrants who have not recidivated for their tier level term, be it 10 or 20 years. This added qualifier is a retributive piece of legislation as it bear no factor to recidivism rate.
Being tried for the same crime is double jeopardy. The sex crime got one onto the registry (civil). To get off the registry under this new legislation and using the same crime to prevent relief means being tried again to another term on the registry (civil). Yet, that wasn’t the point of the registry. Again, the registry was created due to the likeliness of re-offense (a frightening and high recidivism rate).
SB-384 already addressed which tier an individual is placed: tier 1, tier 2, or tier 3. It is up to the individual to not re-offend during their placed tier to petition off the registry. Re-visiting the case is obsolete because it has no bearing on current recidivism.
Is the registry about recidivism or retribution?
Would they also try to apply this retroactively to people who have already been granted relief from registering?
This is California’s district attorney’s office response to (People vs Thai) If passed this would give the district attorney the ability to deny your petition, and any comments made in treatment can and will be used against you in a court of Law.
Read (PEOPLE VS ALHANAIT)
Gosh, I leave California for a few months and some snake of a politician is trying unravel our progress. OK, it is an election year does he have a challenger for his seat? Modesto, –Perhaps changes to his seat can be arranged. Chaplain Rob
I just got back from lobbying at Florida’s capital…NOW this! I just reached out to a couple of members in the California State Assembly regarding this bill a Republican and a Democrat. Perhaps Assemblyman Juan Alanis will pull the Bill. Regardless we need to stay vigilant and follow Janice and ACSOL’s lead on this…. Chaplain Rob