Comments that are not specific to a certain post should go here, for the month of April 2024. Contributions should relate to the cause and goals of this organization and please, keep it courteous and civil. This section is not intended for posting links to news articles without additional relevant comment.
Related posts
-
CA: Bay Area Community Services (BACS) is hiring
Source: bayareacs.org The California-based Bay Area Community Services (BACS) is looking to expand our services in... -
The Law Must Respond When Science Changes
Source: scientificamerican.com 11/4/24 What was once fair under the law may become unfair when science changes.... -
US appeals court rejects sentencing panel’s compassionate release policy
Source: reuters.com 11/1/24 Nov 1 (Reuters) – A federal appeals court on Friday ruled that the...
Anyone know how to get the DOJ attention to reassign me a tier after a 17(b) for a 311.11(a)? It’s only been a few weeks, I have emailed, faxed, etc and no change in tier 3. No other convictions and it has been 12 years since conviction. I was also granted a 1203.4
I’m curious to hear peoples opinions or explanations of SB 384, SEC. 10, Subdivision (2) P-U (this are all 311’s from tier 3 section on line (R)).
This section is in regards to what will be fully publicly listed. In this section it refers to all those 311’s as being publicly listed if they are FELONIES. Does this mean that all these codes are Tier 1 if they’re not felonies? The section above also has point (V) that’s a catch-all if the person is in Tier 3, but it’s confusing to me as to why things are referred to here as felonies if misdemeanors for those codes are Tier 3 regardless? (V) either makes almost everything above it redundant, or this section means that anything that’s referred to as a felony here means that if it’s a misdemeanor it’s no longer tier 3.
I’m not sure if what I posted above makes sense as to what I’m trying to say. Here’s the link to the bill so you can see the sections in question along with portions I omitted as they don’t seem relevant.
https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB384/id/1652009
I tried to donate plasma today because money is beyond tight, and they had a new donors special $800 for 8 sessions….did all the prep work forms, passed all the physical and blood tests verifying I was a viable donor. Final portion prior to actually being hooked up to a machine the nurse tells me I am barred from donating for life due to my PFR status. How is this even legal? How can they ban someone for life over something 100% unrelated? So much for the registry being just like a Sam’s Club membership. I have been bouncing off of the final solution threshold for quite a while now, crap like this does not help
Probably not a good idea to secure your phone with just your fingerprint if you are a parolee. This is from Short Circuit about a recent decision in the 9th Circuit.
“In another Ninth Circuit parolee case, officer forces parolee to unlock his phone with his thumbprint, so that the officer can look for evidence of drug dealing—which he finds.
Ninth Circuit
US v Payne
Parolee’s motion to suppress evidence denied. Compelled thumb use did not violate 4A because parolees subject themselves to broad warrantless searches in exchange for limited freedom. Nor did it violate 5A right to not testify against oneself because thumbs can’t testify.”
WRT a day care (and away from the plasma center specific thread here in GC), the prohibition is a blanket prohibition as I understand it, i.e., 24/7/365; HOWEVER could the prohibition be overbroad/overly restrictive when it should only be applied during the open operating hours of the established day care when the alleged (and ridiculous) thinking supposedly should apply to meet the requirement of the law when minors are present?
I have long thought about that and wondered if the legislatures could be forced by court order upon being challenged to readdress the law to tailor it to open operating hours when minors are present. The same could apply to schools IMO WRT PFRs being on or near taxpayer funded school properties during non-traditional operating hours when students could be present.
IMO, it is overbroad and should be challenged to be readdressed as stated above for both situations. By being forced to tailor it, they would be forcing day care centers to establish open operating hours for all to know, including those in residences, as well as school districts to establish traditional school hours where students would be present for educational and extra-curricular activities. Heck, if someone probation or parole could be restricted to their movements and where, then the reverse could happen to reign in overly broad laws.
I know schools are also used during off hours for functions where minors could present, but that is usually open to the public, unless school specifically provided, and it stops being an educational site and more of a public use site, much like an arena could be that is owned and operated by a public govt entity.
Just an open thought for the forum and masses here to bat around…
According to today’s recording, Janice said people convicted of 288.2, 288.3, and 288.4 are recommended to be in tier 2, but according to the alert email it says tier 1.
STOTUS: Grants Pass v Johnson
Status vs Conduct question. Is fining Homeless people for sleeping in public parks Cruel and Unusual because it punishes homeless people based on their status as homeless?
If the fine is punishing homeless people for being homeless, it is. If it is punishing the conduct of sleeping in public parks, it is not.
How is it even possible to question if it is C&U to fine a homeless person for sleeping in a public park… but residency restriction is unquestionable? Clearly RR is entirely based on status, and creates far greater difficulty than these fines do.
The m*f*ers from Wisconsin DOC just got around to emailing me & saying that if I move back to that state, I’m required to be on GPS tracking for life under their new toy law. If I don’t make arrangements when I get there, I’m subject to arrest and criminal charges. Well whoop-de-doo! Because I ain’t going back. Now why would I do that? To put an extra smile on the faces of Gov Evers and his but buddy Kevin Carr? Those two cheesheads are thirsting for another pint of blood, but they’re not getting it from me
Is it me, or does this society have a horrendous tendency to persecute certain groups to extreme degrees , and then when things get abjectly dire, then call the same people who they persecuted relentlessly and viciously to come help them ? Has anyone noticed that ?
If you’re in Southern California and need a place to stay call LA CADA, they take in PFR.
Just read that Harvey Weinstein has had his NY sex assault conviction overturned by the NYSC because the judge allowed hearsay testimony to be introduced into the trial by those who accused him of similar acts, but weren’t validated by charges and convictions. He will now be released from NY BOP and head to CA to finish his sentence there which he received from his CA convictions of the same nature.
The DA pressed the limit, the judge allowed the pressing, and this is what you get in the end when the legal system works as it should by overturning this case. With that being said, I hope he sues the DA and NY civilly, even if the NY citizen is the one who will pay for it in the end. Wish the DA and judge could be sanctioned or disbarred from their positions because of this. Maybe Harvey could appeal to the NY Bar for their help in doing that…nah, they protect their own…unless they are not liked by the Bar.
@SteveD. Careful man. You might be seen as dog grooming😭
“Ask Amy” gives some crappy advice. Time to give her a piece of our own advice:
“Ask Amy: A neighbor is a sex offender. Should I tell my other neighbors?”
Apparently, her answer is “yes.” She sees it as a social obligation with any bad things that happen to the “sex offender” a “consequence” of his crimes.
Curious about this new show: Preview of ‘Who Guards the Guards?’ on ABC News LiveABC News investigates the Los Angeles County Probation Department, looking at more than 2,500 claims of abuse of vulnerable youth at the hands of probation officers.
I have long given up on common sense when it comes to the registry. I just listened to the lates RM (Registry Matters) where Chance Oberstein is now a regular guest. He spoke about the latest development when it comes to Tier Assignment, mentioning the 17b (reduction from felony to misdemeanor), and he stated that once a 17b is received, it is a misdemeanor for all purposes. Since some offenses would be Tier 3 as a Felony but Tier one as a Misdemeanor, those people will now get a Tier re-assignment. So, how is it that the 17b is recognized when it comes to the registry, yet a 1203.4 expungement is not? If you are no longer convicted of a crime, how can you even be on the registry? We can’t use the argument “if you have ever been convicted…” because then the 17b would not get someone in a lower tier as those folks “had been convicted of a felony…” but got it reduced to a misdemeanor. Just like with the 17b, a person who has earned a 1203.4 is no longer convicted. So how is it they still have to register as PFR when there is no conviction of a sex offense? I don’t want to hear the PC290.007 argument as that law is no longer valid as written: ‘”A person required to register pursuant to any provision of the Act shall register in accordance with the Act, regardless of whether the person’s conviction has been dismissed pursuant to Section 1203.4, unless the person obtains a certificate of rehabilitation and is entitled to relief from registration pursuant to Section 290.5, or is exonerated pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 3007.05 of the conviction requiring registration and the person is not otherwise required to register”. As you see it still states “unless the person obtains a COR (Certificate of Rehabilitation)”. With the new law, a COR will not relieve you of the duty to register. This is all such BS. It is mind boggling how someone can have their offense expunged (which only low level cases are eligible for), yet they are placed I the highest Tier of the registry. Anyone?
It me with the registrant who did not get off the boat except in US port but boat was in international waters and so a travel violation was placed. An expo facto push got an offer of obstruction of justice with a full yr suspended sentence and full year probation. We want to push back more but we do not have a fantastic litigator (had to give the cases from this cite to get the motion done) anyway as a spouse of the one on probation can I just leave and do I have to answer the door if the registrant is not home? it was a very very nasty years from original plea which we felt we had no choice to take but found others were able to push back and get a better plea. So we are not excited about another plea demanding we say we did something we did not do in place of something else which was never done and yet as family members can we just leave and is there a difference between the felony probation and a misdemeanor probation? Again it was nasty the first round and all my young kids were there and I did not think I could just take the and leave and so now I want to know if I can just take my older kids and leave if they need ot come to the home and harass I mean search and make a mess? And we have work but I hear that probation will try to have the job terminated by coming in and embarrassing the one on probation so wow why is this a good deal if we still lose everything.
I just learned that in Texas a landlord can be sued for negligence for renting to a registered person if that registered person commits or attempts to commit a crime against a person (does not have to be a sexual offense). There are also some non-sexual offenses also for which a landlord can be sued for negligence for renting to a person.
Does a reduction via 17b for a 311.11(a) put offenders at tier 1 or 3? Based on research, it’s tier 1 for some, 3 for others. The DOJ can’t possibly just pick and choose what to follow and it seems to be a back and forth discussion. Anyone?
The attached meme was sent to me about life overall and is very spot on, but is short one thing…the registry and any related consequence of it. No one will understand until it happens to them or theirs. Getting those who are in seats of power to understand and feel how it impacts people is key to understanding the changes needed.
Hello all,
I’ll be petitioning in March ‘25 for relief. A misdemeanor CP. I have decided to move offshore. I have lived in other countries while in the service of the country that ostracized me and as a private citizen. I have been getting info on different locations and have found that Vienna, Austria is surprisingly affordable and welcoming. My Grandfather was from Austria, but my parents were born stateside, so need to determine if that qualifies me for provisional citizenship. Have seen many areas of the city that have VERY affordable rentals ( under $900 ). Great public transportation, too. I think more qualified people should look into Europe as a destination for work or retirement.
I want to stress the new expungement law 1203.425 again. This new law expands the types of offenses that are eligible for an automatic expungement after certain criteria is met. Sex offenses are excluded, of course. However, some sex offenses can be expunged via the traditional petitioning (1203.4). The benefit for either are the same. It states: “Understanding Expungement in California:
Expungement, in essence, allows eligible individuals to have their criminal records cleared. This means that once expunged, the record will no longer be visible to the general public or employers conducting background checks. However, it is important to note that expunged records may still be accessible to certain government agencies or law enforcement authorities.” Emphasis is on “This means that once expunged, the record will no longer be visible to the GENERAL PUBLIC or employers conducting background checks”. Those with a 1203.4 should at a minimum not be puclicly listed for the reason stated above. Registration and public listing have never been one and the same. My fiance always had to register, but prior to the new law, he was not publicly listed, so obviously, registering and being publicly listed have always been two different things. Secondly, even if they added the Static-99R BS, maybe going forward, they want to put people into Tier 3, but anyone prior to the new law should not be added, especially when their score was the same prior to the new law, and their offense was considered one that did not warrant public listing. This is a TRUE case of ex post facto and has NOTHING to do with public safety as the score remains unchanged with over a decade being offense free.