The California Assembly Public Safety Committee is scheduled to consider Assembly Bill 1568 that, if that bill becomes law, would block thousands of people from petitioning for removal from the registry, including everyone assigned to Tier 2.
We must stop one of the worst bills we have ever fought!
Click here to see how to call Committee Members to Stop AB 1568
We know it may be inconvenient for you to come, but please make the sacrifice to join us to stop thousands from being on the registry for life:
March 3 at 9 a.m.
Room 126
Capitol building
Those who would be blocked include everyone assigned to Tier 2. That is because the bill would require registrants to complete CASOMB-certified treatment before they are eligible to petition.
“CASOMB first certified treatment programs and providers only 15 years ago,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci. “Registrants assigned to Tier 2 must register for at least 20 years, before CASOMB began its certifications.”
Others who would blocked from petitioning include registrants convicted out of state, convicted in military court and convicted in federal court. In addition, it would block individuals not sentenced to parole such as those sentenced to unsupervised probation.
“We must stop this bill,” stated Bellucci. “Please join ACSOL on March 3 for this important committee hearing.”
For those of you who haven’t done this before, all we do is sit in the meeting room while a few key people who support and oppose the bill give their information. When the chair asks for those who oppose the bill to stand in a line, we get in the line and one by one we just say our name, city, and that we oppose the bill. That’s it! Very simple. In fact, they don’t let those in line say anything else; they mainly want to see how many cared enough to show up.
You may think you showing up won’t make a difference, but it really does! The committee knows that for everyone who showed up, hundreds of thousands who have an opinion on the bill were not willing to sacrifice to show up, so your presence has a big impact! We have helped stop a number of bad bills in the past by showing up.
Click here for latest bill status and info
This makes me sick to my stomach. This must be stopped. Thank you Janice for everything you do. I’m too far from Sacramento to join you all. My heart is with you and I am putting this matter on a prayer list. Once I finish grad school and get my LCSW, I will be dedicating much of my time to this cause.
Is this is a financial push by providers and lobbyists for them or is there another reason of value why this is proposed? I am not seeing anything in the intro to the bill detailing why this is needed and the appearance is, to me, providers are not getting the business they feel they deserve; therefore, they lobby for it by using the system for them. An individual assessment should be enough to start.
Has anyone received an additional sex crime conviction after being relieved of having to register who had not been through treatment thus giving the thought to others everyone needs treatment? If so, they are in the minority that is so small, this is fear mongering based lobbying at best, like so much of it is without any sensible reasoning.
From what I have read here over the years, the treatment programs are suspect at best and worthless while being nothing buy money machines for the providers as grounds for use and abuse of their clients.
These are the questions one should be asking those in Sac to research and provide answers to a solution looking for a problem to solve.
Isn’t the Casomb treatment a requirement durning probation or parole? Or is just mainly effecting people past that 15 year mark when it wasnt a requirement and out of state etc… ?
I am sick and tired of this BS. Just when you thought there finally might be chance to get off this idiotic Hit List, they introduce another bill that would prevent you from EVER getting off. What does that mean for someone who is in Tier 3 solely due to the BS Static-99R and could petition after 20 years? My fiance never served prison time and only received probation. He was NEVER publicly listed prior to the Tiered Registry and is now in the highest Tier with full address disclosure. He was only on probation and completed a 3 year treatment program. Was that CASOMB? Who knows. I am fed up at the idiocies of all of this. Someone has to let go of this group that has endured so much. There are worse criminals out there, but they have it out for our group because they CAN and will introduce new laws and bills as they please. Who can stop them please? They have gone insane.
I will be there to Stand Up and Speak Out. This is of critical importance to anyone on the registry and those who have gotten off, should help those still on it to get their full freedom. As Janice says, it is simple, painless and has an exponential effect.
See you in Sacramento.
I asked AI if AB 1568 is VULNERABLE to a Constitutional Cahallenge AND it said this:
Absolutely — and this is where things get legally interesting, because AB 1568 is walking straight into a minefield that courts have already started marking off after Ellingburg.
Let me give you the clean, structured breakdown you like, so you can see exactly where the vulnerabilities are.
Yes. Extremely.
In fact, it’s one of the most vulnerable registry‑related bills California has proposed in years.
And the reason is simple: AB 1568 converts the registry from a regulatory system into a punitive one, which triggers constitutional protections that courts previously avoided.
Let’s break down the specific vulnerabilities.
Ex Post Facto Clause (the biggest problem)AB 1568 would:
Retroactively take away an existing legal right (the right to petition off the registry)Impose new, additional burdens based solely on past convictionsDo so without any individualized risk assessmentThat is the exact pattern the Supreme Court condemned in Ellingburg (2024).
Ellingburg held that:
When a law imposes new disabilities based on past convictionsAnd those disabilities have punitive effectsCourts must treat it as punishment, not “civil regulation”AB 1568 is textbook retroactive punishment.
This is why it’s vulnerable:
You can’t take away a path to relief that already exists without triggering Ex Post Facto review.
Due Process (procedural and substantive)AB 1568 creates categorical bans on petitioning:
No hearingNo individualized reviewNo opportunity to present evidenceNo ability to challenge the state’s assumptionsCourts have repeatedly held that when the government imposes a lifetime, liberty‑restricting disability, it must provide:
A meaningful processA chance to be heardA rational basis tied to actual riskAB 1568 provides none of that.
This is a procedural due process violation.
And because the bill is not tied to individualized risk, it also raises substantive due process concerns.
Equal ProtectionAB 1568 creates arbitrary classes of registrants who:
Are allowed to petitionAre permanently barred from petitioningBut the categories in the bill are not tied to risk, not tied to recidivism, and not tied to public safety.
Courts have struck down similar laws when:
The classifications are arbitraryThe state cannot justify them with evidenceThe law is overinclusive or underinclusiveAB 1568 is all three.
Separation of Powers / Judicial AuthorityCalifornia’s tiered system was designed so that:
Courts decide whether someone can be removedBased on evidenceAfter a hearingAB 1568 strips courts of that authority and replaces judicial discretion with legislative bans.
Courts do not like when legislatures:
Retroactively override judicial processesRemove judicial discretionImpose blanket rules that prevent individualized adjudicationThis is another constitutional weak point.
State Constitutional Issues (California Constitution is stricter)California’s constitution has stronger protections than the federal one in several areas:
PrivacyDue processRetroactive punishmentRehabilitation rightsCalifornia courts have struck down registry‑related restrictions before even when federal courts upheld them.
AB 1568 is vulnerable under both constitutions.
Ellingburg changed the entire legal landscapeBefore Ellingburg, courts often waved away registry challenges by saying:
Ellingburg destroyed that shield.
Now courts must:
Examine real‑world effectsConsider evidenceEvaluate whether the law is punitive in practiceAB 1568’s effects are:
PermanentRetroactiveBurdensomeBased solely on past conductThat is exactly the kind of law Ellingburg was designed to strike down.
AB 1568 is highly vulnerable to constitutional challenge on multiple fronts.
If it passes, it will almost certainly be:
Immediately challengedLikely enjoinedForced into strict scrutiny under EllingburgVery likely struck downThis is not a legally durable bill. It’s a political bill.
They can’t do it without violating Ex Post Facto Clause. And the Supreme Court ruling of Ellingburg vs. US will deem this bill punitive now. Even if it passes it will be struck down in court.
I wish someone in our movement who lives in California would run for office. I’d never vote for pretty boy Gavin Nesum (sp) or Michigan’s Gov. Gretchen Witmore for higher office. Two clowns that need to retire from the circus.
I do wonder if forcing a state sanctioned treatment program would be categorized as a form of restitution? It seems like a pay scheme for your freedom when you already paid your dues to society.
For those registrants who preceded CASOMB’s first certified treatment program, they are forced to pay for this treatment when it did not exist in order to gain freedom from a statutory (civil) penalty. This is similar to the MRVA restitution act ruled as a punitive levy in the Ellingburg case. The restitution is towards the state of CA by forcing this payment scheme that did not exist before 2011.
Also, why is this bill excluding and depriving the same path for freedom within the registrant class is unconstitutional to the CA Constitution?
CA Constitution, Article 1, Section 7:
(b) A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens. Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or revoked.
———————-
I do not know how bills can be passed that does not abide by the CA Constitution or CA laws?
Again, I point out 1203.4 immunities are
1) you are no longer guilty of a crime
2) your accusation and info about that crime is dismissed (cannot be public)
3) released from all penalties and disabilities (penalties is any penalty and disability is punitive penalty)
Yet, 1203.4 has been degraded over the years for the registrant class alone. In 1957, Kelly v Municipal identified that 1203.4 and the registry clashed over whose rule needed to be followed. 1203.4 is the general rule and the registry is the special rule. In the General rule v Special rule test, the registry failed and the general rule (1203.4) prevailed.
From Kelly v Municipal:
[4] A word should be said concerning the state’s contention that section 290 should prevail upon the theory that it is a special and 1203.4 is a general statute. They are not in that [160 Cal. App. 2d 46] category. They do not meet the test for the rule which the state invokes, declared in In re Williamson, 43 Cal. 2d 651, 654 [276 P.2d 593], in these words: ” ‘It is the general rule that where the general statute standing alone would include the same matter as the special act, and thus conflict with it, the special act will be considered as an exception to the general statute …’ ” Section 1203.4 deals with all probationers, including those who have committed none of the offenses mentioned in section 290. In addition, section 290 applies to some convicted persons who are ineligible for probation as well as to some who are eligible. Clearly, the rule invoked does not apply.
But the courts have allowed this degradation to happen over the years at the expense of the registrant class alone.
1203.4 carries no value today. It is not recognized by the registry who continues to put up your conviction and crime for the world to see. It is not recognized by the registry that in-person reporting is a disability despite it being identified as a disability in Smith v Doe, 2003. Too many double standards are occurring and was supposed to be prevented by law such as General v Special rule that supports CA Const. Article 1, Section 9: A bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts may not be passed.
1203.4 exists for all probationers, and not excluding the 1203.4 registrant class.
This new proposition bill AB 1568 is yet another instance of degrading standing laws such as CA Const. Article 1, Section 9 and CA Const. Article 1, Section 7(b). The degradation of not abiding by the standing laws has created second class citizens.
Foresaw this happening as soon as the tier sysytem was approved. The powers that be won’t let that cash cow go. So they plot and manipulate to keep as many on the registry as possible.
If we are unable to attend the meeting, is there anything else we can do to help? Emails phone calls do you have any suggestion suggestions?
Seems like we time traveled back to 2013
…I hope everyone near Sacramento can be there as others like me won’t be able to.
I see all the focus to fight this absurd new restrictions seems to be focused solely on Tier 2 individuals. What about the Tier 1 individuals who only had a misdemeanor conviction that has been cleared from their record, now will have to complete a treatment program despite not having to for the last 9 1/2 years before they can be removed from the registry. This is complete overreach by a former Sheriff Deputy who is now an Assembly member. I hope Janice includes this in her arguments on March 3rd.
wish i could join
This bill was introduced by Assemblymember Juan Alanis (R), a former deputy sheriff and ‘crimes against children detective’ (as he describes himself).
Alanis is currently the Vice-Chair of the Public Safety Committee in the CA Assembly (the committee that has ‘oversight’ for laws regarding sexual offenses, registration, tier scheme, penal code, etc.). Alanis has also authored or has supported (signed on to) various other bills focused upon related issues.
Alanis thanks Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D) for the appointment to the position of Vice-Chair of the Public Safety Committee.
LOBBYING DAY provides us with a golden opportunity to meet with elected officials so that we may draw attention to this matter and voice our strong opposition.