The California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) discussed during today’s meeting that CASOMB and other co-sponsors of the Tiered Registry Bill (Senate Bill 695) are poised to request changes be made to that bill. The changes include no lifetime registration for juveniles, the addition of time limits for decisions by district attorneys and local law enforcement and a rolling system of dates when individuals can petition for removal from the registry. The requests are expected to be made prior to April 18 when the bill will be considered by the Senate Public Works Committee.
As currently written, SB 695 would require some juveniles to register for a lifetime. The co-sponsors of the bill are recommending that juvenile registration be limited to 5, 10 or 15 years depending upon the tiered in which they are placed. As currently written, SB 695 has no time limits for district attorneys to object to petitions for removal and local law enforcement to determine eligibility. The co-sponsors will recommend limits of 30 to 60 days. Finally, as currently written SB 695 allows individuals to petition at any time during the year in which they become eligible. The co-sponsors will recommend that registrants must wait until the month of their birthday to submit a petition for removal.
In addition to discussing SB 695, the CASOMB reported that there are now 104,123 registrants on the state’s registry including 6,372 who are transients and 1,561 who are in violation for failure to register. The state also has 5,889 registrants on parole who are required to wear GPS devices. According to CASOMB, these numbers indicate a continued slow growth of registrants in the state.
Is there any relief for RC’s who have successfully expunged their record? I have an attempted lewd acts with under 14 but was able to expunge. As it stands I still have to register. It would be a meaningful win if an expungement granted relief from the registry. Not sure what the benefit to expungement is if people can just google your name and learn all the need to about your past. Anyone else in the same boat have any input?
Hi Ron. I have a battery charge/Felony/wobbler/ summary probation 20-21 years ago. Reduced to misdemeanor/expunged. By law, the 17B makes it a misdemeanor and you can state you have never been convicted of a felony. I’m not on the website.
I think the tier updates are heading into the right direction, but I think it would be important to address those with expunged convictions. My offense has been expunged for years! So, I can’t see how someone with no criminal history could immediately become a tier 2 etc. I can’t see how we would just fall off the registry after this bill passes, but maybe putting us in the undisclosed category. Legally speaking, we are no longer convicts!
Why do Juveniles receive special treatment when it comes to required registration length of time? 5/10/15 years? That sounds like what it should be for ALL registrants, worst case. Where are they getting these statistics to back up the claims that juveniles should get 5/10/15 and everyone else is longer? Wait, didn’t that Static 99 claim that the younger you are, the more likely you have a risk of re-offending? So why are juveniles getting less than people over age 18? Does anybody within CASOMB and the politicians have authority to Turn On their half-empty brains? No offense to them, but you have to be a special type of ‘intelligent’ to whole-heartedly go along with this Joke. Everyday I am blown away at how horrible of a country the United States is becoming, primarily and possibly entirely due to politics.
What the heck is up with the requested change that you must wait until the month of your birthday to submit the request for removal?!?! That will make me register for almost another full year! My conviction was at the beginning of Nov and my birthday is at the end of September. That means that I will have to wait about 10 years and 11 months instead of the 10 years! Where as someone whose birthday and conviction date are opposite will only have you register for 10 years and 1 month. How does that stand up to the 14th ammendment equal protection clause? What is the point of this change? I can’t seem to find any reason for it!
Anyone that thinks they will get put on the public website due to this bill that wasn’t on it before needs to quickly talk to an attorney if this bill passes.
There are enough precedents now with the registry being punishment that a judge should be able to keep you off the registry prior to you getting a hearing on the matter, and then it should be stopped with a claim of a double-jeopardy violation, due process, and to protect your privacy.
I’m no attorney but I don’t see why those wouldn’t be sufficient.
I’m no attorney, but if you’ve had your conviction expunged, it essentially never happened (there are specific and limited exceptions, from what I’ve gleaned). Heck, even law-and-order Mississippi recognizes that as fact! See: https://courts.ms.gov/Images/Opinions/CO100814.pdf (Paragraphs 6 & 13 are the meat of the issue) in which the MS Supreme Court ruled an expunged record equates to a clean record for registration purposes in MS–even when the expunged crime occurred in another state! It’s a bizarro world when someone from liberal CA needs to move to conservative MS to enjoy improved civil rights and liberties.
CASOMB is disingenuous.
I am sure they are not revealing at the top of their lungs about the under 1% recidivism rates. Also, why are they not questioning the effectiveness and efficiency of the registry? Isn’t that part of the reason they were created?
CASOMB will put out a video that looks as if they’re on the side of registrants, but their actions in government says otherwise. This is what the Michigan courts queried about their state and lack of research. In California, we have the research and they are not using that data to find the effectiveness nor efficiency of registration. The whole point of registration is the false fact bandied about in the 2003 SCOTUS that sex offenders have a high recidivism rate, a rate of 80% re-offending. Where is that process of review?
There isn’t. Why? Because guess who’s on the CASOMB panel. Guess who isn’t. What exactly is the purpose of CASOMB again?
talk about a equal protection issue..I have a attempted lewd Act but since I fought it through trial the judge gave me the maximum sentence which was 4years in prison…how can I others in the same offense be eligible for expungment but I am not simply because I went to prison..
New Person,
What you said about the mini trial is spot on.
I feel like when the scumbag Public Defender (haha) coaxes a kid into signing under threat of lengthy prison time should be grounds for duress.
They handed me a death sentence because I haven’t felt alive since I got out.
I remember my probation officer telling me when I was done with probation I’d be free of registration……that didn’t happen. First example that even LE didn’t fully understand the Registry.
Pray Michigan does the courageous thing, the Right thing and burn the Registry to the ground…..with a splash of holy water.
Every time I read something that comes out of the annals of CASOMB, my stomach sinks because of how dirty and corrupt I think the organization is. I never trust CASOMB information!
I think the comments regarding expunged offenses is very important! In summary, your case has been dismissed! So, posting your information online with the past offense is rather disturbing! I’m not one to argue, but this is a very good point!
Perhaps they need to reconsider just having the Registrant fall off the registry automatically without filing a petition, then they would not have a rush of people storming their offices. Oh wait that makes sense and we all know how much common sense the government has.
Registration is about “sharing public information”. You have no privacy when your conviction is on public record. Thus, you are on the registry – it does not matter if you are on the website or not b/c you will share the same restrictions, penalties, and banishment.
1. California Constitution, Article 1, Section 1 states that all California citizens have the inalienable right to pursue and obtain privacy.
2. 1203.4 withdraws your conviction as well as return you to the state before your conviction, but there are exceptions to this that are listed specifically in 1203.4 by “…and as noted below”. No where below exists any specific statement that registrants must continue to register, but there are listed exceptions on which registrants can apply for 1203.4.
3. The state of California has obviously denied registrants who rightfully earned the 1203.4 their pursuit of privacy as 1203.4 is a legal venue that meets the threshold of obtaining privacy.
4. From wikipedia on the 2003 Smith decision, 5 of the 7 factors for regulatory scheme:
”
First, the regulatory scheme, in its necessary operation, has not been regarded in the Nation’s history and traditions as a punishment. The fact that sex offender registration and notification statutes are of fairly recent origin suggests that the Act was not meant as a punitive measure, or, at least, that it did not involve a traditional means of punishing. Respondents’ argument that the Act, particularly its notification provisions, resembles shaming punishments of the colonial period is unpersuasive. In contrast to those punishments, the Act’s stigma results not from public display for ridicule and shaming but from the dissemination of accurate information about a criminal record, most of which is already public. The fact that Alaska posts offender information on the Internet does not alter this conclusion.
Second, the Act does not subject respondents to an affirmative disability or restraint. It imposes no physical restraint, and so does not resemble imprisonment, the paradigmatic affirmative disability or restraint. Hudson, 522 U. S., at 104. Moreover, its obligations are less harsh than the sanctions of occupational debarment, which the Court has held to be nonpunitive. See, e. g., ibid. Contrary to the Ninth Circuit’s assertion, the record contains no evidence that the Act has led to substantial occupational or housing disadvantages for former sex offenders that would not have otherwise occurred. Also unavailing is that court’s assertion that the periodic update requirement imposed an affirmative disability. The Act, on its face, does not require these updates to be made in person. The holding that the registration system is parallel to probation or supervised release is rejected because, in contrast to probationers and supervised releasees, offenders subject to the Act are free to move where they wish and to live and work as other citizens, with no supervision. While registrants must inform the authorities after they change their facial features, borrow a car, or seek psychiatric treatment, they are not required to seek permission to do so.
Third, the Act does not promote the traditional aims of punishment. That it might deter future crimes is not dispositive. See, e. g., id., at 105. Moreover, the Ninth Circuit erred in concluding that the Act’s registration obligations were retributive. While the Act does differentiate between individuals convicted of aggravated or multiple offenses and those convicted of a single nonaggravated offense, these broad categories and the reporting requirement’s corresponding length are reasonably related to the danger of recidivism, and this is consistent with the regulatory objective.
Fourth, the Act has a rational connection to a legitimate nonpunitive purpose, public safety, which is advanced by alerting the public to the risk of sex offenders in their community. That the Act may not be narrowly drawn to accomplish the stated purpose is not dispositive, since such imprecision does not suggest that the Act’s nonpunitive purpose is a “sham or mere pretext.” Hendricks, supra, at 371 (KENNEDY, J., concurring).
Fifth, the regulatory scheme is not excessive with respect to the Act’s purpose. The State’s determination to legislate with respect to convicted sex offenders as a class, rather than require individual determination of their dangerousness, does not render the Act punitive. See, e. g., Hawker v. New York, 170 U. S. 189, 197. Hendricks, supra, at 357-368, 364, distinguished. Moreover, the wide dissemination of offender information does not render the Act excessive, given the general mobility of the population.
”
Your case is dismissed. Your case is no longer public. You should no longer be part of the registry b/c of the fact your case does not exist. Yet California is undermining its two statutes, the Constitution and 1203.4, by denying all the benefits from both the statutes.
Allow me to reiterate what 1203.4 is stated to do:
”
the court shall set aside the verdict of guilty; and, in either case, the court shall thereupon dismiss the accusations or information against the defendant and except as noted below, he or she shall thereafter be released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense of which he or she has been convicted, except as provided in Section 13555 of the Vehicle Code.
”
Point 1. Notice how 1203.4 denotes exceptions within that excerpt. Use law to fight law. Although ML says you must continue to register, it is not specifically written into the scope of 1203.4. These two laws cannot co-exist and the law must favor the defendant’s laymen translation.
Point 2. Also notice 1203.4 states you will be “released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense”. It does not identify punishment, but rather “penalties and disabilities”. Loss of privacy is a penalty and a disability. Presence, living, and employment restrictions are disabilities. Being reviewed to go onto any campus is a penalty and will be a disability if registrants are denied wholly to venture onto campus.
At college, there is a sign in book for registrants. For this particular college, parolees must sign in every time they venture onto campus. (The school police doesn’t even think a registrant can be on probation as it was never stated.) If you’re not under custody, then you simply check in at the beginning of each semester. WAIT… WAIT, WAIT, WAIT… So I’m still checking in as if I’m currently under custody. Volume doesn’t matter b/c it’s the similar action that matters.
Which this is similar to compliance checks AFTER probation/parole has been completed.
Great, so you get your case dismissed, but you retain all the penalties and disabilities stemming from your conviction. Your case is no longer public as it does not exist. Using the SCOTUS’ purview, only if you’re on PUBLIC RECORD MUST YOU REGISTER. This is noted at beginning of this comment under the “5 of th 7 factors for a regulatory scheme”, #4 (first factor). This quote can be used to negate the ML’s requirement to continue to register as it is beyond the scope of the original intent of the registry.
In essence, this is like living restriction defense in California. 2003 Smith decision says you must register if your conviction is public. If you have no conviction, then you have no criminal record. So why must you continue to have the stigma that you still have a criminal record? I’ll quote 2003 Smith again:
”
In contrast to those punishments, the Act’s stigma results not from public display for ridicule and shaming but from the dissemination of accurate information about a criminal record, most of which is already public.
”
So California is going above and beyond what the federal law states. If Janice and team can win the residency cases, then this should not be any different. Also, this can extend to the IML. Since my conviction does not exist, then I belong to no registry. If I belong to no registry, then I cannot be a part of IML since being on the registry is the first requirement.
Earning the 1203.4 doesn’t distinguish you from any other registrant at all. Why? Because you still retain the same disability. I’ll continue to mock the 2003 Smith decision as I quote them again:
”
Contrary to the Ninth Circuit’s assertion, the record contains no evidence that the Act has led to substantial occupational or housing disadvantages for former sex offenders that would not have otherwise occurred. Also unavailing is that court’s assertion that the periodic update requirement imposed an affirmative disability. The Act, on its face, does not require these updates to be made in person. The holding that the registration system is parallel to probation or supervised release is rejected because, in contrast to probationers and supervised releasees, offenders subject to the Act are free to move where they wish and to live and work as other citizens, with no supervision.
”
Earning the 1203.4 still disables you from certain housing and occupational opportunities. Also, you still have to show up in person to register. According to 2003 Smith decision, showing up in person to register meets the threshold of punishment. Another point about 2003 in this quote, “no supervision”, doesn’t that include compliance checks, home or work?
The 2003 Smith decision doesn’t care much about online publication, but rather that you must register. And you are registering because your conviction is public. Welp, 1203.4 says my conviction does not exist. Yet nothing has truly changed. I still have housing and occupational limitations. Right now, I am incapable of leaving the state because my only venue off of the registry is the CoR, where I must live in California for a minimum of 10 years after custody, with five years of continuous living in California before applying for the CoR.
The state of California has rendered 1203.4 useless for registrants. Higher paying jobs most often require you to travel and 1203.4 doesn’t help you at all as registering becomes a liability to the company.
Again, SCOTUS 2003 Smith decision stated being on the registry is only due to your conviction being made public. That’s it. That information is disseminated. 1203.4 dismisses my case and my conviction does not exist. So why is it that I must continue to register when the SCOTUS specifically noted who needs to register? Conflate that with California’s own constitution that the right to pursue and obtain privacy is an inalienable right, but California negated that option in 1203.4 for registrants ONLY.
We really should uphold the law to follow the law. My case is dismissed. 2003 Smith decision implies I no longer have to register b/c the requirement to be on the registry is your conviction is public record. No conviction = no record = no registry.
Can we sue California now like Janice has sued cities for residency restrictions that over-reach the original law for all those who have earned the 1203.4?
I was convicted in 1999 for an offense in 1998 in the US District Court, Eastern District of California, for possession of sexually explicit images, depicting minors. There are no identified victims (internet downloads.) In order to avoid trial, trafficking was added as an enhancement and the sentence was 84 months. As a condition of release, I was directed to register in the state in which released.
Subsequently, as there seemed no other relief, in compliance with SORNA I notified the local jurisdiction, Franklin County, Georgia, of my intent to leave that jurisdiction for Martinique (Windward Islands, Caribbean Sea.)
The sailing vessel on which I departed and now live is a US Documented Vessel, documented in Riverside, CA, with a Home Port of Redondo Beach, CA.
That being my official US Residence, would I qualify to Petition for Removal under SB695 (if enacted.)
I agree, the People, in the person of the state, have an obligation to enact such laws as are necessary to ensure as far as possible the ordered cooperation with the social contract. Nevertheless, such enactments must be balanced with reason and supported with facts. SB695 appears to address the requirements of reason based in fact. It will be interesting to see how this legislation is actually applied.
I’m still at a loss for how the state of California if a tiered registry becomes law will deal with registrants petitioning for removal from the registry whose cases are federal or did not involve a California state court. My registration requirements under federal law end after fifteen years. Who would I petition to be no longer required to register in California?
The Draconian constitution, or Draco’s code, was a written law code created by Draco near the end of the 7th century BC in response to the unjust interpretation and modification of oral law by Athenian aristocrats, now america, see hundreds years ltr and still little progress.. civility plain doesnt exist .. ex post facto continues, change and the perseverant spirit acheives much ..