AB 625

Page 1

Date of Hearing: May 18, 2011

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Felipe Fuentes, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 625 (Author:Ammiano) – As Amended: Ver:March 31, 2011

Policy Committee: Public SafetyVote:4-3

Urgency:noState Mandated Local Program:NoReimbursable:

SUMMARY

This bill recasts the current lifetime sex offender registration schema into a three-tiered registration system for sex offenders for periods of 10 years, 20 years, or life. Specifically, this bill:

1)Requires every registered sex offender (RSO) to register as a tier one, two or three offender.

a)Tier one RSOs, subject to registration requirements for 10 years, are defined as follows:

i)Conviction for of a nonviolent registerable offense.

ii)A low to moderate State-Authorized Risk Assessment Tool for Sex Offenders (SARATSO) or the person is not eligible for assessment under current law.

iii)No convictions for 10 years of a registerable sex offense or a violent felony.

iv)No more than one felony conviction of the Act in 10 years.

b)Tier two RSOs, subject to registration requirements for 20 years, are defined as follows:

i)A moderate to high SARATSO score.

ii)No convictions for 20 years, of a registerable offense or a violent felony.

iii)No more than one felony conviction of the Act in 20 years.

iv)A tier one offender subsequently convicted of more than one specified felony, or a registerable offense within 10 years.

c)Tier three RSOs, subject to registration requirements for life, are defined as follows:

i)A high risk SARATSO score.

ii)Conviction of a violent registerable offense within 20 years.

iii)Sexually Violent Predator status (SVP) at any time.

iv)A tier two registrant subsequently convicted of more than one specified felony, or a specified registerable offense after becoming a tier two offender after having previously been a tier one offender.

2)Provides that tier two SROs may petition the Department of Justice (DOJ) for tier one status if convicted of a registerable offense against no more than one victim 12 to 17 years of age and the person was not more than 10 years older than the victim and the act was illegal due solely to the age of the minor.

FISCAL EFFECT

1)DOJ indicates significant start-up GF costs, in the range of $9 million over a three-year period, for feasibility studies and major information technology changes to existing data bases, as well as automated and manual record review.

2)DOJ also indicates significant ongoing GF costs, in the range of $1 million.

(DOJ indicates it would be unable to meet the Jan. 1, 2012 implementation date and suggests a two-year delayed activation is more realistic. The fiscal estimates assume a delayed activation date.)

3)Unknown ongoing moderate GF savings to the extent fewer low level SROs could be prosecuted for failure to register, which is a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on the registerable offense.

4)Ongoing indeterminable local and state law enforcement efficiencies as a result of shifting the focus of RSO monitoring to higher risk offenders.

COMMENTS

1)Rationale. The author’s objective is to create a risk-based registration scheme, based on recommendations of the CA Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) and other experts, to help law enforcement focus on concentrate on higher risk offenders. The author notes, "California is one of the few states that requires lifetime registration with no discernment for the type of offense, and California also does not allow people to petition for removal from the list even when their offenses are not sexually violent or predatory, and they have no other violations. This one-size-fits-all approach puts a strain on state and local resources, casts all registrants in the same predatory mold, and perpetuates misinformation.”

As noted by CASOMB, though the cost of registering and monitoring registered sex offenders statewide has not been quantified, there is a fiscal burden associated with these functions at both the state and local levels. Focusing on lifetime registration for offenders who are higher risk, more violent, or who are repeat offenders allows cost savings while at the same time permitting more intensive monitoring of those offenders most likely to re-offend.

2)CASOMB recommendations. In it 2010 Recommendations Report, the CASOMB noted California is one of the few states with lifetime registration for all sex offenders. “On the positive side, this allows the public to be aware of the majority of sex offenders living in their neighborhoods. On the negative side, the public and local law enforcement agencies have no way of differentiating between higher and lower risk sex offenders. In this one-size-fits-all system of registration, law enforcement cannot concentrate its scarce resources on close supervision of the more dangerous offenders or on those who are at higher risk of committing another sex crime.

“The CASOMB recommends a three-tier system of registration, which will assign a tier level to each sex offender depending, in part, on individual risk assessment, history of violent convictions, and sexual offense recidivism."

3)Other States. According to a CASOMB review:

a)Half of the states require 10 years for the majority of registrants, and life for the rest, using risk assessment or offense-based classifications to determine who registers for life.

b)Some states allow registrants to petition the courts for termination of registration, often after 10 years of registration.

c)Five states require registration for 15 years, 25 years, or life, depending on the offense.

d)Other states use a combination of 15/life; 20/life; 25/life; 5/10/20/life, 10/25/life; 10/15/25/life; or 10/15/20/life, depending on risk or offense classifications.

e)Four states (California, Alabama, Florida, and South Carolina) require lifetimeregistration for all registrants, and one state requires 15 years for all registrants.

California has the most registered sex offenders in the country: about 90,000, 68,000 of whom are in the community. The rest are incarcerated. This large number is due to the population of the state, the length of time California has registered sex offenders (retroactive to 1944), lifetime registration, and a large number of offenses requiring registration.

4)Support. According to the California Coalition on Sexual Offending, “Universal lifetime registration for sex offenders serves little purpose with respect to increasing community safety. On the contrary, it dilutes resources and makes it appear that there are huge numbers of highly dangerous offenders living in the state. While a certain number of sex offenders may well pose a continuing danger and should continue to be required to register for life, many of those currently listed pose no greater thread of sexually offending than does the average adult male. The research supports a differentiated approach using the best available science to assess actual risk - an approach such as that introduced by AB 625.

5)No opposition to this measure has been received by the committee.

Analysis Prepared by: Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081