Source: ACSOL
A judge in San Bernardino Superior Court ruled on December 13 that the time during which a registrant resided overseas does not qualify as registration. As a result, the court decided that the registrant is not eligible to petition for removal from the registry.
“The language in the Tiered Registry Law is unclear regarding whether time spent overseas counts for the purposes of registration,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci. “We believe this case is the first case in which a court has been asked to interpret that language.”
In this case, the registrant was assigned to Tier 2 and therefore required to register for a minimum of 20 years. Although the registrant was released from custody more than 20 years ago, he resided in another country for about 10 years. The District Attorney objected to the registrant’s petition and therefore a hearing was held.
During oral argument, the registrant’s attorney informed the court that the registrant moved to a country where his wife is a citizen. While there, they started more than one successful business and participated in charitable events. The country in which the registrant resided does not have a sex offender registry and therefore he was unable to register there.
It is anticipated that this court decision will be appealed in order to further clarify the meaning of the language in the Tiered Registry Law. If an appeal is filed, an answer from an appellate court will take at least one year.
Unfair! Time doesn’t stop because you move somewhere else! It’s the year 2024 overseas just like in the Unites States. That’s an absurd ruling!
Hmmm.🤔 I wonder if they’ll want to add together all the weeks I’ve spent in France – on vacation – over the past 20 years.
The law is an ass. 🫏🫏🫏
More reason to call it punishment. It operates much like a sentence where the person “absconded.” In the last several years “absconded” has been used to describe those that leave the country to avoid registering. Funny how we can “abscond” from a civil/administrative remedy.
I am not sure of the legal principle that would be involved (if my logic here is correct). But don’t civil matters usually rely on actual time that has elapsed? But rather, criminal sanction relies on time that has been actually served. Does that make sense from more than a common sense perspective, but rather also a legal perspective? Or am I whistling in the wind? (Would that have anything to do with the concepts of “actual” versus “constructive”?)
That’s just plain vindictive
What the judge should have taken into account is that he did not commit another sex offense while in the other country.
Any information on where this individual was residing overseas?
The judge should have asked the State: While he was overseas was he still on the registry? Answer: Yes. And was he legally allowed to be overseas? Yes. Then why are you claiming that the time he was overseas doesn’t count? Further, if you claim that he “wasn’t registering” during his time overseas why haven’t you filed a failure to register charge? Instead you deny his claim to be removed claiming he hasn’t been on the registry long enough almost like he hasn’t served enough time on the registry as if its a sentenced punishment. Since it’s not a punishment and he has in fact been on the registry this entire time and since there is no failure to register claim, I don’t why the State has a problem here.
(you may use my argument free of charge. 🙂
Appeal Appeal
Does anyone know if this law applies to people who moved to a different state? Last I checked the 10th and 14th Amendment requires states treat citizens of other states equally.
what’s the name of the judge?
Laying the groundwork for eliminating all time limits? Fabricating a Legal Illusion of Legitimacy that will be used to compel all that have ever been convicted of anything to register for life, even if they have already been alleviated of this by Tier level time limits?
The arbitrary time limits created as part of the tiered system have always posed a risk to the Frightening and High Illusion of Legitimacy. A person convicted of 311.11 is presumed to be a Lifetime risk if convicted in State A, but this should only be presumed to be true for 20 years if convicted in State B, or 10 years if convicted in State C, unless convicted in a Federal Court in which case the Presumption should conclude 10 years past the point of the Supervised Release and/or Probationary period has expired, which could be for life, in all States.
Trying to maintain the level of presumed credibility the Frightening and High Risk Illusion of Legitimacy needs to be used as a universal justification for the pogrom, is made impossible by these arbitrary time limits. Also by the arbitrary, and inconsistent tier assignments. How can it be presumed to be lifetime here, 20 years there, but only 10 in the other place? How can all of those be true?
So, instead of making 10 years the universal limit, make it lifetime! Also, how can a conviction for PC XXX.xx be considered proof of risk for any period of time here, but not there? So, make all convictions for any penal code violation serve as “proof” of “lifetime risk”!
This ruling helps establish that “no period of time” can ever “diminish risk”, and that registration will always be “needed” for everyone, forever?
San Bernardino has an ultra conservative faction within California. They actually want to secede from Ca. No doubt the Judge has been elected by those nut cases, as was the D.A. These groups feel they now have a backing and will push to reverse current laws as well as put new harsher restrictions in place. Welcome to the new reality, folks.
Two points:
1) This “suspension of time” is only relevant to those categorized as Tier One and Tier Two. If one is “lifetime” (Tier Three), it makes no difference at all. Whenver one returns from an overseas trip, it’s still a “lifetime” (to which one is subjected to these laws).
2) It occurs to me that if the Court made a determination that the time to which one must report and notify, etc., is “suspended” while out of the jurisdiction, then it should logically follow that the reporting/notification obligations are (or should be) likewise suspended. Do all other rules still apply while out of jurisdiction, but just not the time credit?
It seems that the Court is whimsically, arbitrarily and capriciously “parsing out” what applies, what doesn’t, etc.
I got off after 20 years in NY, while spending the last 5 overseas. I guess I got extremely lucky. I bet after they couldn’t figure out how to process my end date for registration, they started to panic and are probably scheming new NY laws for this too.
Doesn’t time heal all wounds? 20 years is 20 years, what matter is it where I am. After 20 years I am mature enough to know better, and follow the laws properly this go around. Seems like a no brainer to get people off when they are supposed to get off and let them move on with their life already. This just has me very irriatated.