BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó






                                                                    AB 2569


                                                                     Page A


          Date of Hearing:  April 19, 2016
          Counsel:               Gabriel Caswell


                         ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY


                       Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr., Chair





          AB  
                   2569 (Melendez) - As Introduced  February 19, 2016




          SUMMARY:  Eliminates the authorization for an offender who  
          commits a specified sexual offense against a victim who is the  
          child, stepchild, sibling, or grandchild of the offender (the  
          "interfamilial exemption") from being eligible for exclusion  
          from the Megan's Law Website.  Specifically, this bill:  

          1)Eliminates the opportunity for an offender who has been  
            convicted of the commission or attempted commission of felony  
            sexual battery, misdemeanor child molestation, or other  
            specified sexual offenses, to apply to the Department of  
            Justice (DOJ) for exclusion from the Megan's Law Website.

          2)Prevents an offender who has been convicted of the commission  
            or attempted commission of an offense for which the offender  
            is on probation at the time of his or her application or has  
            successfully completed probation, from applying for exclusion  
            from the Megan's Law Website if he or she submits a certified  
            copy of an official court document, as specified, that clearly  
            demonstrates that the offender was the victim's parent,  
            stepparent, sibling, or grandparent, and the crime did not  











                                                                    AB 2569


                                                                     Page B


            involve specified sexual offenses.



          EXISTING LAW:  


          1)Provides that an offender may apply for an interfamilial  
            exclusion if they were convicted of specified offenses, submit  
            proper paperwork, and clearly demonstrate that they are the  
            victim's parent, stepparent, sibling, or grandparent, and the  
            offense did not involve oral copulation or sexual penetration,  
            as specified.  Clarifies that if subsequent to the application  
            for interfamilial exclusion, the offender commits a violation  
            of probation resulting in his or her incarceration in county  
            jail or state prison, his or her exclusion, or application for  
            exclusion, from the Megan's Law Website shall be terminated.   
            Additionally requires that for the application to be granted,  
            the offender must have a State Authorized Risk Assessment Tool  
            for Sex Offenders (SARATSO) showing a risk of re-offense of  
            low to low-moderate.  (Pen. Code § 290.46.)  

          2)Requires persons convicted of specified sex offenses to  
            register for life, or reregister if the person has been  
            previously registered, upon release from incarceration,  
            placement, commitment, or release on probation.  States that  
            the registration shall consist of all of the following (Pen.  
            Code, § 290.015, subd. (a).):

             a)   A statement signed in writing by the person, giving  
               information as shall be required by DOJ and giving the name  
               and address of the person's employer, and the address of  
               the person's place of employment, if different from the  
               employer's main address;

             b)   Fingerprints and a current photograph taken by the  
               registering official;

             c)   The license plate number of any vehicle owned by,  











                                                                    AB 2569


                                                                     Page C


               regularly driven by or registered in the name of the  
               registrant;

             d)   Notice to the person that he or she may have a duty to  
               register in any other state where he or she may relocate;  
               and,

             e)   Copies of adequate proof of residence, such as a  
               California driver's license or identification card, recent  
               rent or utility receipt or any other information that the  
               registering official believes is reliable.

          3)States every person who is required to register, as specified,  
            who is living as a transient shall be required to register for  
            the rest of his or her life as follows:

             a)   He or she shall register, or reregister if the person  
               has previously registered, within five working days from  
               release from incarceration, placement or commitment, or  
               release on probation, pursuant to Penal Code Section  
               290(b), except that if the person previously registered as  
               a transient less than 30 days from the date of his or her  
               release from incarceration, he or she does not need to  
               reregister as a transient until his or her next required  
               30-day update of registration.  If a transient is not  
               physically present in any one jurisdiction for five  
               consecutive working days, he or she shall register in the  
               jurisdiction in which he or she is physically present on  
               the fifth working day following release, as specified.   
               Beginning on or before the 30th day following initial  
               registration upon release, a transient shall reregister no  
               less than once every 30 days thereafter.  A transient shall  
               register with the chief of police of the city in which he  
               or she is physically present within that 30-day period, or  
               the sheriff of the county if he or she is physically  
               present in an unincorporated area or city that has no  
               police department, and additionally, with the chief of  
               police of a campus of the University of California, the  
               California State University, or community college if he or  











                                                                    AB 2569


                                                                     Page D


               she is physically present upon the campus or in any of its  
               facilities.  A transient shall reregister no less than once  
               every 30 days regardless of the length of time he or she  
               has been physically present in the particular jurisdiction  
               in which he or she reregisters.  If a transient fails to  
               reregister within any 30-day period, he or she may be  
               prosecuted in any jurisdiction in which he or she is  
               physically present.

             b)   A transient who moves to a residence shall have five  
               working days within which to register at that address, in  
               accordance with Penal Code Section 290(b).  A person  
               registered at a residence address in accordance with that  
               provision who becomes transient shall have five working  
               days within which to reregister as a transient in  
               accordance with existing law.

             c)   Beginning on his or her first birthday following  
               registration, a transient shall register annually, within  
               five working days of his or her birthday, to update his or  
               her registration with the entities described in existing  
               law.  A transient shall register in whichever jurisdiction  
               he or she is physically present on that date. At the 30-day  
               updates and the annual update, a transient shall provide  
               current information as required on the DOJ annual update  
               form, including the information. 

             d)   A transient shall, upon registration and  
               re-registration, provide current information as required on  
               the DOJ registration forms, and shall also list the places  
               where he or she sleeps, eats, works, frequents, and engages  
               in leisure activities.  If a transient changes or adds to  
               the places listed on the form during the 30-day period, he  
               or she does not need to report the new place or places  
               until the next required re-registration.  (Pen. Code, §  
               290.011, subds. (a) to (d).)

          4)Provides that willful violation of any part of the  
            registration requirements constitutes a misdemeanor if the  











                                                                    AB 2569


                                                                     Page E


            offense requiring registration was a misdemeanor, and  
            constitutes a felony of the offense requiring registration was  
            a felony or if the person has a prior conviction of failing to  
            register.  (Pen. Code, § 290.018, subds. (a)&(b).)

          5)Provides that within three days thereafter, the registering  
            law enforcement agency or agencies shall forward the  
            statement, fingerprints, photograph, and vehicle license plate  
            number, if any, to the DOJ.  (Pen. Code § 290.015, subd. (b).)

          6)States that a misdemeanor failure to register shall be  
            punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one  
            year, and a felony failure to register shall be punishable in  
            the state prison for 16 months, two or three years.  (Pen.  
            Code, § 290.018, subds. (a)&(b).)

          7)Provides that the DOJ shall make available information  
            concerning persons who are required to register as a sex  
            offender to the public via an internet website.  The DOJ shall  
            update the website on an ongoing basis.  Victim information  
            shall be excluded from the website.  (Pen. Code § 290.46.)   
            The information provided on the website is dependent upon what  
            offenses the person has been convicted of, but generally  
            includes identifying information and a photograph of the  
            registrant.  

          8)Generally prevents the use of the information on the Web Site  
            from being used in relation to the following areas:  (Pen.  
            Code, § 290.46, subd. (l)(2).)  

             a)   Health insurance;

             b)   Insurance;

             c)   Loans;

             d)   Credit;

             e)   Employment;











                                                                    AB 2569


                                                                     Page F



             f)   Education, scholarships, or fellowships;

             g)   Housing or accommodations; and 

             h)   Benefits, privileges, or services provided by any  
               business establishment.


          FISCAL EFFECT:  Unknown. 


          COMMENTS: 


          1)Author's Statement:  According to the author, "As statistics  
            show, the most common sex crimes committed against children  
            are committed by a family member, someone the child knows and  
            trusts.  Since 2011, over 1000 sex offenders have been  
            excluded from the Megan's Law website with nearly half of  
            those exclusions being from the family member exemption.  The  
            intent of Megan's Law is to provide the public with the  
            information on the whereabouts of sex offenders so communities  
            may protect themselves and their children.  If the intent of  
            Megan's Law is to protect the public against sex offenders,  
            yet we are allowing the exclusion of people who are committing  
            sex crimes against their own kin; then the intent of Megan's  
            Law is not being met under the current law.  We cannot  
            continue to keep sexual predators and pedophiles hidden from  
            the public.  It heavily contradicts the main purpose of  
            Megan's Law: to keep families safe."   


          2)Sex Offender Registration and the Megan's Law Website:   
            According to a 2014 report by the California Sex Offender  















                                                                    AB 2569


                                                                     Page G


            Management Board<1>, the intent of registration was to assist  
            law enforcement in tracking and monitoring sex offenders since  
            they were viewed as the group most likely to commit another  
            sex offense. It was thought that having their names and  
            addresses known to law enforcement and with the expansion of  
            community notification also available to the public would  
            dissuade them from committing a new offense, enable members of  
            the public to exercise caution around them, enable law  
            enforcement to monitor them and, if necessary, solve new sex  
            offense cases more readily. Although research suggests that  
            use of a registry may help law enforcement solve sex crimes  
            against children involving strangers more quickly, United  
            States DOJ statistics tell us that most crimes against  
            children (about 93%) are committed not by a stranger but by a  
            person known to the child and his or her family, usually an  
            acquaintance or family member.


            Since 1947, earlier by far than any other state, California  
            has required "universal lifetime" registration for persons  
            convicted of most sex crimes. (Pen. Code, § 290.) Though every  
            other state has instituted some form of registration since  
            then, California is among only four states which require  
            lifetime registration for every convicted sex offender, no  
            matter the nature of the crime or the level of risk for  
            reoffending. Almost all other states use some version of a  
            "tiering" or "level" system which: 1. recognizes that not all  
            sex offenders are the same, 2. provides meaningful  
            distinctions between different types of offenders and 3.  
            requires registration at varying levels and for various  
            periods of time.  There are nearly 100,000 registrants today  
            in California, a number accumulated over the past 66 years  
            since the Registry was created in 1947. In 2004 California  
            began to provide pictures and other identifying information on  
            the Megan's Law website for about 80% of registrants.  
            (  www.meganslaw.ca.gov  )

            --------------------------
          <1>  
          http://www.cce.csus.edu/portal/admin/handouts/Tiering%20Backgroun 
          d%20Paper%20FINAL%20FINAL%204-2-14.pdf










                                                                    AB 2569


                                                                     Page H



            There are about 98,000 registered sex offenders on  
            California's registry. About 76,000 live in California  
            communities and the other 22,000 are currently in custody. Of  
            these offenders, 80% are posted on the state's Megan's Law web  
            site with their full address or ZIP Code and other  
            information, depending upon the offense they committed.  About  
            20% are not posted or are excluded from posting on the web  
            site by law, again depending on the conviction offense.  
            Posting on the web site does not take into account years in  
            the community without reoffending, the offender's risk level  
            for committing a new sexual or violent crime, or successful  
            completion of treatment.  About one-third of registered  
            offenders are considered "moderate to high risk" while the  
            remaining two-thirds are "moderate to low risk" or "low risk."  
            Local police departments and sheriff's offices are charged  
            with managing the registration process. Registered sex  
            offenders must re-register annually on their birthdays as well  
            as every time they have a change of address.  Transient sex  
            offenders re-register every 30 days and sexually violent  
            predators every 90 days. Registration information collected by  
            law enforcement is sent to the California Department of  
            Justice (DOJ) and stored in the California Sex and Arson  
            Registry.  If an offender's information is posted online and  
            he fails to register or re-register on time, he will be shown  
            as "in violation" on the Megan's Law web site. When proof is  
            provided by local law enforcement to DOJ of a registrant's  
            death, he or she is removed from the registry.  Every ten  
            years since the Registry was first established has been marked  
            by a dramatic increase in the number of registrants.

            As noted above, the original goal of registration was to  
            assist law enforcement in tracking and monitoring sex  
            offenders.  Over time, registration was expanded to include  
            community notification and also began to encompass a wider  
            variety of crimes and behaviors.  Due to these changes,  
            research has focused on exploring the changes in sex 4 CASOMB  
            "Tiering Background Paper" offender registration laws and this  
            has resulted in a constantly growing body of research that has  











                                                                    AB 2569


                                                                     Page I


            altered the perspective on sex offender registration. This  
            research has made it clear that:

                     The sexual recidivism rate of identified sex  
                 offenders is lower than the recidivism rate of  
                 individuals who have committed any other type of crime  
                 except for murder. 

                     Not all sex offenders are at equal risk to reoffend.  
                 Low risk offenders reoffend at low rates, high risk  
                 offenders at much higher rates. 

                     It is possible to use well-researched actuarial risk  
                 assessment instruments to assign offenders to groups  
                 according to risk level. (i.e. Low, Medium, High.) 

                     Risk of a new sex offense drops each year the  
                 offender remains offense-free in the community.  
                 Eventually, for many offenders, the risk becomes so low  
                 as to be meaningless and the identification of these  
                 individuals through a registry becomes unhelpful due to  
                 the sheer numbers on the registry. Research has  
                 identified differing time frames of decreased risk for  
                 the various categories of offenders (i.e. low, medium,  
                 high). 

                     Research on both general and sexual offenders has  
                 consistently indicated that focusing on higher risk  
                 offenders delivers the greatest return on efforts to  
                 reduce reoffending. 

            Completing a properly designed and delivered specialized sex  
            offender treatment program delivered within the context of  
            effective supervision reduces recidivism risk even further. In  
            California, all registered sex offenders on parole or  
            probation are now required by state law to enter and complete  
            such a program.
            
          1)The Current Sex Offender Registration System and Megan's Law  











                                                                    AB 2569


                                                                     Page J


            Website has Become too Unwieldy to be Effective for Law  
            Enforcement:  Again, according to California's Sex Offender  
            Management Board, there are a number of problems with the  
            current system as a result of adding too many low-risk sex  
            offenders.  California's system of lifetime registration for  
            all convicted sex offenders has created a registry that is  
            very large and that includes many individuals who do not  
            necessarily pose a risk to the community. The consequences of  
            these realities are that the registry has, in some ways,  
            become counterproductive to improving public safety. When  
            everyone is viewed as posing a significant risk, the ability  
            for law enforcement and the community to differentiate between  
            who is truly high risk and more likely to reoffend becomes  
            impossible. There needs to be a way for all persons to  
            distinguish between sex offenders who require increased  
            monitoring, attention and resources and those who are unlikely  
            to reoffend.


            There are many unintended consequences and indirect costs  
            associated with sex offender registration. 

                           Innocent families and children of offenders  
                    (including victims of intra-familial sexual abuse)  
                    also bear the consequences of lifetime registration  
                    since they can often be identified by the public.  
                    Adverse consequences also arise for employers,  
                    landlords, neighbors and others.

                           There has been a proliferation of residence  
                    restrictions and exclusion zones for registered sex  
                    offenders in many jurisdictions in California.  
                    Violation of these can lead to criminal charges. The  
                    obstacles posed by registration status prevent many  
                    individuals from obtaining housing or employment and  
                    becoming functioning, contributing, tax-paying members  
                    of society. 

                           There is reason to believe that registration  











                                                                    AB 2569


                                                                     Page K


                    policies, especially lifetime registration, keep some  
                    victims, particularly family members of the offender,  
                    from disclosing the abuse because they wish to avoid  
                    the stigma that will impact their family and their own  
                    lives for a very long time. 



                           The presence nearby of one or more registered  
                    sex offenders can drive down property values in a  
                    neighborhood and make houses difficult to sell.  If  
                    the current registration system was effective in the  
                    ways intended, these might be considered part of the  
                    price to pay for the greater good. But, since the  
                    current registry does not attain its intended  
                    purposes, many of these unintended consequences are  
                    without justification.

          1)AB 1323 (Vargas) Created the Interfamilial Exemption from the  
            Megan's Law Website to Protect Victims of Sex Offenses from  
            Public Disclosure:  AB 1323 (Vargas), Chapter 722 of the  
            Statutes of 2005 was a cleanup bill which was passed the year  
            after Megan's Law which was instituted in California as AB 488  
            (Para), Chapter 745 of the Statutes of 2004.    According to  
            background information supplied by the author of AB 1323  
            (Vargas), as well as information provided by the California  
            Department of Justice at the time, the interfamilial exemption  
            was provided to protect the identity of minor victims of  
            interfamilial molestation.  The publishing of the  
            perpetrator's name, offense, address, and photograph on the  
            Megan's Law website would also provide information to the  
            community that a reasonable person would piece together and  
            disclose the fact that a minor was in fact a victim of  
            molestation.  At the time, the bill was supported by the  
            California State Sheriff's Association, the California  
            Probation Parole and Correctional Association, California  
            District Attorneys Association, and the San Bernardino County  
            Sheriff.   












                                                                    AB 2569


                                                                     Page L



            The bill proponents argue that offenders can relocate and  
            reside with another family and might perpetrate the same crime  
            on an unknowing victim.  Additionally, they argue that parents  
            of a friend of the minor victim are unable to check the  
            Megan's Law website to determine if their children are at risk  
            when they go and spend time at the house of a potential  
            offender.  Opponents state that while some family members may  
            want to see the abuser posted online, many do not.  Most  
            family members who offend against another family member  
                                            maintain some type of relationship with the victim and family  
            and may even reunify.  Posting the name of the offender online  
            can disclose the victim's identity and/or cause continuing  
            embarrassment to the victim and whole family-not just the  
            abuser.   The law was already amended as a part of Chelsea's  
            law, by the Department of Justice, to provide that DOJ can  
            only exclude offenders who are low and low-moderate risk, but  
            must post moderate-high risk and high risk offenders. 


            Interfamilial exempted offenders are registered as sex  
            offenders, however their identities are not posted on the  
            Megan's Law website.  As a result, law enforcement has the  
            mandated requirements for monitoring the offenders without the  
            public disclosure of their identity.  As stated previously,  
            the reason for the non-disclosure of the offender's identity  
            is to protect the identity of the victim.  


          2)Only Low to Low-Moderate Risk Offenders may be Granted an  
            Interfamilial Exemption:  California passed Chelsea's Law in  
            2010 in the form of AB 1844 (Fletcher), Chapter 219, Statutes  
            of 2010.  As a part of Chelsea's law the state adopted the  
            State Authorized Risk Assessment Tool for Sex Offenders  
            (SARATSO).  SARATSO utilizes evidence-based practices to  
            measure the risk of re-offense of a particular offender.   
            Chelsea's Law imposed the following additional requirement on  
            persons applying for an interfamilial exclusion from the  
            Megan's Law website:  











                                                                    AB 2569


                                                                     Page M




               "No person shall be excluded pursuant to this subdivision  
               unless the offender has submitted to the department  
               documentation sufficient for the department to determine  
               that he or she has a SARATSO risk level of low or  
               moderate-low."  (Pen. Code § 290.46, subd. (e)(4).)  


            The term SARATSO refers to evidence-based, state authorized  
            risk assessment tools used for evaluating sex offenders. State  
            law established the SARATSO (State Authorized Risk Assessment  
            Tool for Sex Offenders) Review Committee, to consider the  
            selection of the risk assessment tools for California.  
            Research shows that the most accurate way of predicting  
            whether a sex offender will reoffend is by utilizing a  
            validated risk assessment instrument. 


            A collaborative approach to sex offender management, known as  
            the Containment Model, is used in California. Communication  
            and collaboration among the supervising officer, treatment  
            provider, and polygraph examiner are the heart of this model,  
            which relies on ongoing communication about risk.


            In September 2013 the SARATSO Committee selected a new dynamic  
            risk tool, the Stable-2007/Acute-2007.  Certified treatment  
            providers must continue to use the previous dynamic  
            instrument, the SRA-FVL, until being trained by a  
            SARATSO-approved trainer in 2013-2014 on the  
            Stable-2007/Acute-2007.  


          3)Suggested Amendment:  The committee has suggested an amendment  
            that would balance a potential middle-ground between the  
            public's right to know and a victim's right to not be "outed"  
            as a victim of molestation.  The committee has suggested that  
            rather than eliminating the interfamilial exemption  











                                                                    AB 2569


                                                                     Page N


            completely, that:


               Pen. Code § 290.46 require that the Department of Justice  
               Office of Victim Assistance must speak to the victim prior  
               to the granting of an exemption to determine if the  
               granting of the exemption is in the best interest of the  
               victim.  





          4)Contrary to the Thinking of the California Sex Offender  
            Management Board:  On September 20, 2006, Governor Arnold  
            Schwarzenegger signed Assembly Bill 1015, which created the  
            California Sex Offender Management Board.  AB 1015 had been  
            introduced by Assembly Members Judy Chu and Todd Spitzer and  
            passed the California Legislature with nearly unanimous  
            bipartisan support.



          Because California is the most populated state in the Union and  
            has had lifetime registration for its convicted sex offenders  
            since 1947, California has more registered sex offenders than  
            any other state with about 88,000 identified sex offenders  
            (per DOJ, August 2007). Currently, the California Department  
            of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) supervises about  
            10,000 of those 88,000 sex offenders, of which about 3,200  
            have been designated as "high-risk sex offenders".  (CDCR  
            Housing Summit, March 2007).  Additionally, there are about  
            22,500 adult sex offenders serving time in one of 32 state  
            prisons operated by CDCR (California Sex Offender Management  
            Task Force Report, July 2007).

          According to the Sex Offender Management Board, "Innocent  
            families and children of offenders (including victims of  
            intra-familial sexual abuse) also bear the consequences of  











                                                                    AB 2569


                                                                     Page O


            lifetime registration since they can often be identified by  
            the public. Adverse consequences also arise for employers,  
            landlords, neighbors and others."  California Sex Offender  
            Management Board (2014). A Better Path to Community Safety.  
            Available at:  
            (  http://www.casomb.org/docs/Tiering%20Background%20Paper%20FINA 
            L%20FINAL%204-2-14.pdf).  
          5)Argument in Support:  According to United Advocates for  
            Children and Families, "AB 2569 is aimed at addressing a  
            critical component missing in Megan's Law. Our statewide  
            Parent Partner Coalition supports AB 2569. Some of our members  
            have first-hand experience with a relative sexually abusing  
            our children. It compounds the hurt and trauma when that  
            person is excluded from registering as a sex offender and may  
            go on to hurt other family members. Many family members are to  
            shamed or afraid to let other family members know what  
            happened. According to the 'National Center for Victims of  
            Crime'  (http://www.victimsofcrime.org)  , "People who sexually  
            abuse children usually know the victims before making sexual  
            contact; Abusers can be anyone, even someone the victim used  
            to look up to, like, or trust, such as a neighbor, babysitter,  
            friend, or member of the family or household.


            "About 90% of children who are victims of abuse know their  
            abuser. Only 10% of sexually abused children are abused by a  
            stranger. Approximately 30% of children who are sexually  
            abused are abused by family members. (  http://www.d2l.org/  ).


            "Familial abuse effects the whole family for a longer time  
            because the abuser is often still around the family and victim  
            and becomes the 'secret' in the family. This causes discord  
            and suspicion within the family and extended family and the  
            victim is traumatized over and over again. We will continue to  
            support AB 2569."


          6)Argument in Opposition:  According to American Civil Liberties  











                                                                    AB 2569


                                                                     Page P


            Union, "AB 2569, is a bill that seeks to eliminate the  
            authority for the Department of Justice to exclude a person on  
            the sex offender registry from disclosure of their information  
            on the internet if the person is a parent, stepparent, sibling  
            or grandparent of the victim, and specific criteria have been  
            met. While it may seem counter-intuitive, the purpose of this  
            provision is to protect the privacy and welfare of victims,  
            particularly minor victims, and it should not be eliminated. 


            "Under current law, a person who is required to register as a  
            sex offender may petition the Department of Justice to exclude  
            their personal information from posting on the internet if all  
            of the following conditions are met:


              1)    The person is the parent, stepparent, sibling or  
                grandparent of the victim; 
              2)    The person has completed probation or is on probation,  
                meaning that he or she was not sentenced to state prison; 
              3)    The offense did not involve oral copulation or  
                penetration of the genitals; and 
              4)    The person has submitted "documentation sufficient for  
                the department to determine that he or she has a SARATSO  
                risk level of low or moderate-low."(Pen. Code sec.  
                290.46(e)(2)(D) and Pen. Code sec. 290.46(e)(4).) 

             "AB 2569 seeks to eliminate these provisions, thereby forcing  
             the public posting on the internet of offenders who meet these  
             criteria. 

             "The purpose of this exemption is to protect the privacy and  
             welfare of the victim, particularly minor victims, in these  
             cases. When the offender is a close family member -  
             specifically a parent, stepparent, sibling or grandparent -  
             public disclosure of information about the offender may result  
             in the disclosure of the identity of the victim. It is  
             important to note the very narrow set of offenders to whom this  
             exemption applies: those who have been granted probation, and  











                                                                    AB 2569


                                                                     Page Q


             thus not sentenced to state prison; who have committed offenses  
             involving only touching, not oral copulation or penetration;  
             and who have a low or moderate-low risk level. Together, these  
             criteria limit this posting exemption to the most low-level of  
             offenses between very close family members. In these  
             circumstances, it is highly likely that the offender and victim  
             continue to have a relationship. They may in fact live in the  
             same home, or the victim may regularly visit the home of the  
             offender. 

             "In these situations, exempting the offender's information from  
             public posting on the internet is necessary to protect the  
             privacy and welfare of the victim. If people know that your  
             sibling, parent or grandparent has been convicted of a sex  
             offense, you will likely face uncomfortable questions from  
             friends, acquaintances and even strangers.<2> Worse yet, you  
             could become the target of harassment for having a close family  
             member on the sex offender list and/or may be impacted by  
             harassment aimed at your family member, particularly if you  
             live in the same home. These problems already exist even with  
             the current exemption. A recent report of the California Sex  
             Offender Management Board states:

                 "Innocent families and children of offenders (including  
               victims of intra-familial sexual abuse) also bear the  
               consequences of lifetime registration since they can often be  
               identified by the public. Adverse consequences also arise for  
               employers, landlords, neighbors and others. . . .

                 "There is reason to believe that registration policies,  
               especially lifetime registration, keep some victims,  
               particularly family members of the offender, from disclosing  
               the abuse because they wish to avoid the stigma that will  
               impact their family and their own lives for a very long  

             ---------------------------
             ---------------------------
          <2> Levenson, J. S., & Tewksbury, R. (2009). Collateral damage:  
          Family members of registered sex offenders. American Journal of  
          Criminal Justice. Available at:  
           http://ilvoices.com/media/ea99d28960ec776bffff84beffffe415.pdf  










                                                                    AB 2569


                                                                     Page R




















































                                                                    AB 2569


                                                                     Page S


               time.<3>

            "Eliminating the existing exemption will make these problems  
          worse. 

            "The current exemption is narrowly tailored to a very limited  
            class of offenders who have committed the lowest level of  
            offense, who are at low risk of reoffending, and who have been  
            deemed appropriate for a grant of probation. If a person does  
            not meet all of these criteria, then their information will be  
            disclosed. The current exemption thus appropriately balances  
            the need for public safety with the need to protect the  
            privacy and welfare of the victim. For these reasons, we must  
            oppose AB 2569."


          1)Prior Legislation:


             a)   AB 1844 (Fletcher), Chapter 219, Statutes of 2010, known  
               as Chelsea's Law, specified that the only people eligible  
               for an interfamilial exemption are those who can provide  
               evidence that they are low risk or low-moderate risk on a  
               SARATSO risk assessment.  


             b)   AB 1323 (Vargas), Chapter 722 of the Statutes of 2005  
               was a cleanup bill which was passed the year after Megan's  
               Law which created the interfamilial exemption for the  
               protection of public disclosure of victims who suffered  
               molestation by immediately family members. 


             c)   AB 488 (Para), Chapter 745 of the Statutes of 2004,  
               created the Megan's Law website.  
             --------------------------


          <3>California Sex Offender Management Board (2014). A Better  
          Path to Community Safety. Available at:  
           http://www.casomb.org/docs/Tiering%20Background%20Paper%20FINAL%2 
          0FINAL%204-2-14.pdf  








                                                                    AB 2569


                                                                     Page T




          














          REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:




          Support


          California Alliance of Child and Family Services 


          California Protective Parents Association 


          City of Hemet 


          City of Murrieta 


          Crime Victims United of California 












                                                                    AB 2569


                                                                     Page U



          Incest Survivors Speakers Bureau of California 


          National Organization for Women of California 


          Stand! For Families Free of Violence


          United Advocates for Children and Families  




          Opposition


          American Civil Liberties Union 


          California Attorneys for Criminal Justice 


          California Civil Liberties Advocacy 


          California Public Defenders Association 


          California Reform Sex Offender Laws 


          Legal Services for Prisoners with Children 

          Analysis Prepared  
          by:              Gabriel Caswell / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744













                                                                    AB 2569


                                                                     Page V