Getting Removed From the Megan’s Law Website in California

Last week, we wrote about certificates of rehabilitation, which relieve you from having to register as a sex offender.

As you may know, California publishes information from its sex-offender registry on a public website. The information includes your name, gender, date of birth, ethnicity, photograph, physical description, and relevant conviction. It also includes your home address or your county and zip code depending on the conviction. For violent or otherwise serious offenses, including those against children, it gives your home address. For somewhat less serious offenses, it gives your county and zip code, but if you have priors, that can change.

In a few cases, even if you can’t end or avoid registration, you can remove yourself from the public website. To do it, you have to apply directly to the California Department of Justice, and you can find the application form here.

To qualify, the state must regard you as a low risk for reoffending, and your only registry-related convictions must be for the following:

  1. felony sexual battery by restraint under Penal Code section 243.4(a);
  2. misdemeanor annoying or molesting a child under Penal Code section 647.6;
  3. some felony child-pornography offenses if all minors were 16 years of age or older; or
  4. an offense for which you’re on probation or have successfully completed probation, where you’re the victim’s parent, sibling, stepparent, or grandparent, and it didn’t involve oral copulation or sexual penetration.

If you qualify, the government must grant your exclusion. By the way, don’t go searching the Megan’s Law website yourself; it’s a misdemeanor.

Certificates of Rehabilitation in California

A certificate of rehabilitation is a court order that declares your rehabilitation to the world. It also automatically recommends you to the governor for a pardon. If you’re not eligible for an expungement, you can still clean up your record through a certificate of rehabilitation. Or you may want to apply for one even though you’ve already expunged your conviction.

Like an expungement, a certificate of rehabilitation will bring better job prospects and a better chance at getting a professional license. Unlike an expungement, it won’t allow you to say that you have no conviction.

But also, unlike an expungement, a certificate of rehabilitation can relieve you from having to register as a sex offender. The court will deny it, however, if it finds you’re a continuing threat to minors. Or the district attorney’s office can petition to rescind it on that ground.

To qualify, you must show that you live “an honest and upright life” and have demonstrated rehabilitation for a number of years after you were released from custody or put on probation or parole. You can’t still be under supervision, and the number of years depends on the nature of your conviction. In a nutshell, it’s nine years if you were convicted of a serious violent crime; ten years if you were convicted of most sex offenses that require sex-offender registration; and seven years for anything else. You also must prove that you’ve lived in California for at least five years before you filed your petition.

Who’s ineligible? Well, you’re not eligible if you don’t meet the above criteria. But you’re also ineligible if you were convicted of a serious sex offense involving a minor. If that’s the case, you can still ask the governor directly for a pardon, but you’ll need to show extraordinary circumstances to get it. Finally, you’re not eligible for a certificate of rehabilitation if you were convicted of a misdemeanor, unless it was a sex offense that required registration.

How do you do it? You can find more information from the governor’s office here, and you can pull the appropriate forms from your local courthouse, public defender, or probation department. The court may even appoint counsel to represent you. Or, if you can afford it, retain counsel to make the best case for you.

Lifetime Sex-Offender Registration for Kids

Do you think sex-offender registration is punishment?

What if it’s for life?

What if it’s for a 12-year-old boy?

Last week, the California Court of Appeal ruled that it’s not punishment to call a kid a sex offender for life because of something he did when he was twelve years old.

According to the court, the boy’s early years were marked by extreme neglect and abuse. He was taken from his mother at age five and shunted from one foster home to another until he was adopted.

Then, when he was twelve, he was processed in juvenile court for pushing a five-year-old boy to the ground and committing a lewd act on him. He was put on probation and ordered to enroll in sex-offender treatment.

After that, he was found to have violated his probation three times: once for hanging out with other minors without adult supervision; once for touching his adoptive sister’s breast, after which he was sent to a group home; and once more for grabbing a boy’s butt there.

At that point, the court put him in juvie and ordered him to register as a sex offender. In California, that meant he would have to register as one for the rest of his life. Wherever he moved, he would have to register with the city police or the county sheriff. If he went to college, he would have to register there, too. Even if he never moved, he would have to register again every year within five days of his birthday.

He appealed on the ground that lifetime registration for kids was cruel and unusual punishment. He also argued that it hindered public safety rather than helped it because it hurt a kid’s chance to live a normal life. Even the juvenile court had acknowledged that it “mess[ed] up the rest of their lives by hanging this tag on them.” Of course, the same could be said for adults, as we’ve explained before.

But the appellate court held that it wasn’t even punishment, let alone cruel and unusual punishment. The court relied on prior cases by the California Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court to that effect. Although those cases didn’t address the question of kids specifically, this court wasn’t going to be the first to carve out an exception for them.

Our Federal Prisons Are Fueled By Drugs

That’s the takeaway from this report by the federal courts and U.S. Sentencing Commission.

To summarize, there are almost 200,000 people in federal prison today, and almost half of them (or 48%) are there for drugs. Almost all of them (93%) are men, and the vast majority are young, minority men. The breakdown is 35% Hispanic, 35% black, and 27% white.

Here are the top five types of cases:

  1. Drugs (48%)
  2. Guns (19%)
  3. Immigration (8%)
  4. Child pornography and sex offenses (7%)
  5. Major frauds (5.8%)

For fraud cases, the median dollar loss was $800,000, in case you were wondering.

For the drug cases, here’s the breakdown among drugs:

  1. Methamphetamine (32.8%)
  2. Powder cocaine (24.2%)
  3. Crack cocaine (20.9%)
  4. Heroin (9.5%)
  5. Marijuana (8.4%)

Finally, the report shows how often people are sentenced below, above, or within the range that’s recommended by the federal sentencing guidelines. Here’s a crash course on the guidelines if you want to know how they work.

  • Half were sentenced within the guideline range (50.4%)
  • A quarter were sentenced below the range with the government’s support (24.7%)
  • One-fifth were sentenced below the range without the government’s support (21%)
  • Relatively few were sentenced above the guideline range (3.9%)

New California Criminal Laws in 2017

Let’s get right to it.

We already covered three of them in prior posts. One was Proposition 64, which legalized recreational marijuana. Another was Proposition 57, which expanded parole eligibility for nonviolent felons and cut back on prosecuting kids as adults. A third was Assembly Bill 1909, which made it a felony for prosecutors to commit Brady violations in bad faith.

Here are five more.

Ransomware is a form of extortion. This is Senate Bill 1137. It amended the Penal Code to punish anyone who introduces ransomware into a computer system or network. It doesn’t matter whether you actually got the ransom or not; it’s a felony punishable by two, three, or four years in the county jail. See Pen. Code § 523.

New business search warrants, less drama. This is Senate Bill 1087. It amended the Evidence Code to make it easier for innocent businesses to comply with search warrants for their records. Now, if a business is not a subject of the underlying investigation, it may be able to produce its records by mail or in some other arms-length way. That’s a lot better than having agents show up to go through your stuff. See Evid. Code § 1560(f).

New motion to vacate a conviction or sentence based on immigration consequences or fresh evidence of innocence. This is Assembly Bill 813. It allows you to ask a court to throw out your case in two situations even though you’ve served out your sentence. The first is if you pleaded guilty because of a legal mistake that undermined your ability to understand the immigration consequences of your plea. The second is if you can present fresh evidence that you were innocent. See Pen. Code § 1473.7.

No more possibility of probation for sex offenses where the victim was unconscious or too intoxicated to consent. This is Assembly Bill 2888. It eliminated probation as a possible sentence for rape, sodomy, oral copulation, or sexual penetration with a foreign object if the victim was unconscious or too intoxicated to consent. It extended a rule that already applied to other, serious sex offenses. See Pen. Code § 1203.065.

No more statute of limitations for felony sex and child-molestation cases. This is Senate Bill 813. It eliminated the statute of limitations for a litany of sex crimes, which now may be prosecuted at any time. Previously, they had to be prosecuted within ten years, or if the alleged victim was under 18, before he or she turned 40. See Pen. Code § 799.

Lies, Damned Lies, and Sex Crimes

If you thought the case from last week was bad, here’s another one that’s worse.

This time, the supposed victim hasn’t stepped forward to admit she lied, so the man she accused of child molestation sits in prison, as he has for seventeen years, and the system seems powerless to stop it.

What happened? The jury never saw medical records in which the girl’s mom told a hospital therapist that her troubled daughter was a “pathological liar and she lives her lies.” The jury never heard about this and other details at trial because the prosecutor didn’t turn over the records. He told the judge there wasn’t anything in there to worry about.

How did it happen? The man was divorced and estranged from the mom, but he’d been in the girl’s life for ten years before that. The girl first reported the abuse three years after the divorce but only after her mom found out that she was dating a 27-year-old heroin-dealing parolee, and they got into a big fight about it. The mom reported the parolee and got him locked up. The girl flew into a rage and attempted suicide several times. It was in that context that she accused him.

But the girl’s story changed throughout the case. Initially, she said that he had touched her inappropriately but denied oral sex or intercourse of any kind. Then she claimed that he had raped her. By the time of trial, her testimony was that her stepfather had routinely raped her for years. Then, after he was convicted, she submitted a victim-impact statement in which she claimed, for the first time, that he had even shared her sexually with others.

The judge was not impressed. She had presided over the trial, and she thought the girl was lying. She asked to see her medical records, but the prosecutor refused. She threatened to throw out his conviction unless she saw the records, and he gave in.

The judge took one look at the girl’s medical records and immediately ordered a new trial. Here’s her written order. You should read it for yourself.

But the prosecutor’s office appealed the judge’s order. They got the conviction reinstated and the case reassigned to another judge, who sentenced the man to seventy years.

The man remains in prison today, serving out a death sentence. His case has cut a tortured path through state and federal appeals.

Someone should intercede.

Cyber Search Warrants Are Going to the Dogs

It’s true, and reportedly, even the recent search of Jared Fogle’s home involved a Labrador who found a thumb drive of potential evidence.

The dog is one of a handful or two nationwide that’s trained to sniff out electronics and their component parts based on a chemical that’s common to all of them. Law enforcement won’t identify the chemical, but after a few months of training, the dogs learn to detect its odor. They can then be used to search for anything from laptops, tablets, and hard drives to thumb drives, circuit boards, and tiny memory cards.

It’s a relatively new advent but one that’s catching on quickly.

Still, we should remain wary of the potential for abuse. A lot depends on how well these dogs are trained and how scrupulously they are used by their handlers, among other things.

Child-Pornography Possession in State and Federal Court

Among the common offenses for which people must register as sex offenders is possession of child pornography.

Under California law, possession of child pornography is a felony, though it may be punished by imprisonment either in the county jail for up to one year or in state prison for 16 months, two years, or three years. Pen. Code § 311.11(a). If you possess more than 600 images and at least ten of them depict a prepubescent minor or one under the age of twelve, then you’re facing a possible top term of five years instead of three. Id. § 311.11(c)(1). The same rule applies if you possess any images that portray sadomasochistic activity. Id. § 311.11(c)(2). To count the number of images, each still photo or depiction counts as one image, and each motion picture or video counts as fifty. Id. § 311.11(f). If you have prior convictions for child pornography or any other offense that requires sex-offense registration, then you’re looking at state prison for two, four, or six years. Id. § 311.11(b).

A lot can turn, however, on how a prosecutor charges the case, and several related, alternative offenses may be charged as felonies or misdemeanors. See generally id. §§ 311-312.7 (cataloging the criminal obscenity laws).

Under federal law, possession of child pornography is a felony punishable by imprisonment for up to ten years in all cases or twenty years if any image depicts a prepubescent minor or one under the age of twelve. 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5), (b)(2). If you have prior convictions for child pornography or another offense that requires sex-offense registration, then you’re looking at a maximum sentence of twenty years and a mandatory minimum of ten. Id.

Alternatively, if the prosecutor charges you with receiving child pornography rather than possessing it, you face a mandatory-minimum sentence of five years and a maximum sentence of twenty. See id. § 2252A(a)(2), (b)(1). Tack on a prior conviction and you’re looking at a minimum of fifteen years and a maximum of forty. Id. If you’re not clear on the distinction between receiving and possessing or why the former triggers a mandatory-minimum sentence while the latter doesn’t, you’re not alone. No one understands it, but it helps prosecutors obtain guilty pleas by offering to dismiss the receipt charge if you plead guilty to the possession or by threatening to add the receipt charge if you don’t.

In federal court, your actual sentence will depend on how the court applies the federal sentencing guidelines. See generally U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2 (setting forth the guideline for child-pornography possession). As in state court, there are enhancements based on the number of images, the age of the minors, and any sadomasochistic imagery (among others). In federal court, each still photograph or depiction counts as one image, and each motion picture or video counts as 75 images. Generally, in better-case scenarios, you’re looking at a guideline range of around two years. In worse-case scenarios, even for simple possession, you could well be facing eight to ten years in prison or more.

Many well-meaning people believe these punishments are excessive, and among the most criticized is a federal provision that adds two aggravating points to your guideline calculation if you used a computer to commit the offense. Id. § 2G2.2(b)(6). In reality, everyone receives this enhancement because, nowadays, child pornography (and all pornography) is possessed virtually exclusively through the use of computers. Simply, it makes no sense to consider them as an aggravating factor at sentencing.

For these reasons, in federal court, child-pornography possession generates more below-guideline sentences than any other category. In fact, in a 2010 survey of federal judges by the U.S. Sentencing Commission, over 70% of respondents—representing nearly 70% of all active, sentencing judges—believed the guidelines for possession and the mandatory minimum for receipt were too high.  Just two percent thought they were too low.

Our Ballooning Sex-Offender Registries

California’s not the only state having trouble with its sex-offender-registration regime. In New York, the prisons are holding people past their release dates because they can’t find anywhere to live, and nearly 95% of the homeless shelters are off-limits, too.

The problem is that we don’t pass these laws on the basis of reason and evidence but on the basis of an emotional reaction to bad facts in higher-profile cases. That’s not good policy, but that’s how we get laws that require lifetime registration for every sex offense regardless of the offense or the person’s risk of re-offending (which is the case in California). Or how we get laws that register people for things like consensual teenage sex (as in at least 29 states), peeing in public (at least twelve states), or prostitution (at least six states).

The consequences are that we spend many millions of dollars to maintain registries that don’t help us distinguish high-risk offenders from low-risk ones and that permanently deprive people of any hope, housing, employment, or positive human relationships by branding them as monsters for life.

A large, growing body of research, however, says that we’re wrong about two key assumptions: that sex offenders re-offend at a higher rate than others and that most of them are strangers lurking among us. To the contrary, they are no more likely to re-offend than others—or even less likely to do so—and they are overwhelmingly not the bogeymen in the bushes but, rather, the (unregistered) people we know.

Who says so?

Well, the U.S. Department of Justice, for starters. Here’s a 2009 DOJ-funded study, for example, that found lower rates of recidivism based on its meta-analysis of 23 prior, accredited studies. And here’s a 2003 DOJ report that tracked nearly two-thirds of all the sex offenders who were released from state prisons in 1994 and found they had a lower rearrest rate than non-sex offenders.

Or how about the California Sex Offender Management Board, which oversees the largest state registry in the country in the first state to create one (back in 1947). The Board is comprised of prosecutors, police officers, and parole agents among other experts and officials. Around this time last year, it released a white paper that proposed replacing mandatory lifetime registration in California with a three-tiered system:

  • lifetime registration for sexually-violent offenders, repeat offenders, and other high-risk offenders;
  • a twenty-year registration for those who are convicted of serious or violent offenses but are not high-risk re-offenders; and
  • a ten-year registration period for misdemeanor offenders and others convicted of non-serious or non-violent offenses.

The Board’s proposal would help focus resources on those who truly present a risk while permitting others to develop stable lifestyles and move forward with their lives. We should lend our support to legislators who sponsor a bill to enact its recommendation.

Or how about Patty Wetterling, whose eleven-year-old son, Jacob, was kidnapped in 1989. Afterward, she worked hard to move more states to create sex-offender registries, and in 1994, President Clinton signed the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act into law. Today, Ms. Wetterling is the Chair of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, and she has served on its Board of Directors for over twenty years. But she is also one of the sharpest critics of the spiraling, ballooning use of registries that does more harm than good.

Homeless Outside a Homeless Shelter

Hold on to your hats.

Two weeks ago, the California Supreme Court unanimously struck down a provision of Proposition 83—commonly known as Jessica’s Law—that had barred all registered sex offenders from living within 2000 feet of any school or park. The Court held the provision was unconstitutional to the extent that it applied automatically across the board to every registered parolee in San Diego County. The Court affirmed, however, the state’s right to impose residency restrictions—whether more or less stringent than Proposition 83—on individual parolees based on the particular circumstances of a case.

It’s not hard to understand why this makes sense when, depending on the map and makeup of a county, these people have nowhere to live. They may no longer be able to live with their families, in sober-living homes, or even in homeless shelters depending on the location. In San Diego, where the lawsuit was brought, Proposition 83 had effectively barred registered parolees from access to over 97 percent of the county’s available housing, and realistically, the remaining three percent was not entirely available either due to high rents, low vacancies, and the unwillingness of some landlords to rent to the parolees. Ultimately, the residency restrictions made everyone less safe by sabotaging parole: destroying people’s ability to live and work and making it more difficult to supervise them.

This was true of the four plaintiffs who brought the lawsuit, each of whom was rendered homeless by Proposition 83. Two of them had been sleeping in alleys behind the parole office at the suggestion of their parole agents (who were likely at a loss themselves about what to do). One of them had followed his parole agent’s suggestion to live in the riverbed of the San Diego River. The first was a man who was registered because of a 1991 conviction for sexual assault against an adult woman, and who had no other convictions for sex crimes and no convictions at all for crimes against children. The second was a man who was registered because of a 1989 conviction for misdemeanor sexual battery against an adult woman; he too had no other convictions for sex crimes and no convictions at all for crimes against children. The third was a woman who was registered for a 1988 conviction for committing a lewd and lascivious act on her daughter, who was under the age of 14 at the time, but had no other convictions for sex crimes or crimes against children. The fourth was a man who was registered because of a 1981 case when he was 15 years old, and a juvenile court found that he’d committed a lewd and lascivious act on his 10-year-old sister. He too had no other convictions for sex crimes or crimes against children.

After an eight-day evidentiary hearing on these issues, the trial court concluded that the residency restrictions were unconstitutional as a mandatory condition on all parolees, but they could be imposed as discretionary conditions on a case-by-case basis.

On review, the Court of Appeal and, now, the Supreme Court have agreed.

Ratings and Reviews

The National Trial Lawyers
Mani Dabiri American Bar Foundation Emblem