BILL ANALYSIS SENATE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY A David Roberti, Chairman B 1993-94 Regular Session 2 5 AB 2500 (Alby) 0 As amended August 8, 1994 0 Hearing date: August 9, 1994 Penal Code MLK:rn SEX OFFENDERS: REGISTRATION HISTORY Source: Department of Justice Prior Legislation: None Support: Adam Walsh Center; The Polly Klaas Foundation; Family Service of the North Bay; Protecting Our Children; Child Abuse Forensic Institute; Enough is Enough; United Against Crime; California State Sheriffs' Association; Department of California Highway Patrol; Capitol Resource Institute; Office of Criminal Justice and Planning; Peace Officers Research Association; City of Ukiah; Protect Our Children; Concerned Women of America; Missing children report; California Department of Corrections; Sacramento Kiwanis; Amber Foundation; Child Abuse Prevention Council of Orange County;800 individuals Opposition: California Public Defender's Association; California š Attorneys for Criminal Justice; ACLU; Personal Insurance Federation (unless amended); California Newspaper Publishers Association (unless amended); National Association of Social Workers; Kenneth W. Fors, M.S.W., L.C.S.W. Assembly Floor vote: Ayes 66 - Noes 5 (THIS ANALYSIS REFLECTS AUTHOR AMENDMENTS TO BE OFFERED IN COMMITTEE.) KEY ISSUES SHOULD THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (DOJ) OPERATE A "900" TELEPHONE šNUMBER THAT MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC MAY CALL AND INQUIRE WHETHER A šNAMED INDIVIDUAL IS LISTED AS A PERSON WHO HAS BEEN CONVICTED OF A (More) AB 2500 (Alby) Page 2 SPECIFIED SEX OFFENSE? SHOULD THE DOJ MAINTAIN AND DISTRIBUTE TO SHERIFF AND POLICE šDEPARTMENTS FOR PURPOSES OF PUBLIC ACCESS, A SUBDIRECTORY OF šPERSONS WHO ARE DEEMED BY DOJ TO BE SEXUAL HABITUAL OFFENDERS AND A šTHREAT TO PUBLIC SAFETY? PURPOSE Existing law requires that any person convicted of enumerated sex šoffenses is required to register with law enforcement officials in šthe city, county or city and county where they are domiciled, and šwith the chief of police on any University of California or šCalifornia State University where he or she is domiciled. (Penal šCode 290) Existing law makes failure to register a misdemeanor, punishable by ša fine up to $1,000 and/or up to six months in the county jail, šwith a minimum of 90 days for specified offenses. Any person who šhas two prior convictions for wilfully failing to register and who šsubsequently and wilfully commits that offense, is guilty of an šalternative felony/misdemeanor, punishable by 16 months, two or šthree years in state prison and/or a fine of up to $10,000 or by šimprisonment in county jail up to one year and/or a fine up to š$1,000. (Penal Code 290(a) and (g)(1). Existing law allows for the release of the criminal history of a šperson to a number of individuals including, any city county or šdistrict officer for employment, licensing or certification špurposes under specified circumstances or for screening prospective šconcessionaires. (Penal Code 11105 et. seq.) Existing law allows human resource agencies or employers to access šspecified sex crime convictions of any person who applies for a šlicense, employment or volunteer position with supervisory powers šover minors. (Penal Code 11105.3) Under existing law, banks and credit unions have access to šspecified criminal records of their employees. (Financial Code š777.5; 14409.2) Existing law requires day care facilities and child care providers što get the criminal convictions of all persons who have access to šthe children or reside in the facility. (Health and Safety Code š1596.871; 1597.54; 1597.81) Under existing law county, city or special park districts are not špermitted to hire anyone for a position with supervisory or šdisciplinary authority over minors if they have been convicted of šspecified sex offenses. (Public Resources Code 5164) (More) AB 2500 (Alby) Page 3 Under existing law public school districts and private schools are šrequired to check the criminal record of their teachers and šadministrators. (Penal Code 11145; Education Code 33190; 44341) Existing law allows license-exempt child care providers to initiate ša background check through the DOJ. If their background is clear šof convictions and child abuse charges they will be listed in a šstatewide trustline registry. People can call this registry to see šif a person is listed. This bill does the following: Requires DOJ to continually compile information regarding any šperson required to register as a sex offender for specified šoffenses. Requires DOJ to operate a "900" telephone number that members of šthe public may call and inquire whether a named individual is šlisted as a person who has been convicted of a specified sex šoffense. Requires DOJ to ascertain whether a named person reasonably appears što be a person listed and provide the caller with specified šinformation, except DOJ shall not disclose the address or criminal šhistory, except to describe the specific crimes of which the šregistrant was convicted. Prohibits disclosure of the address or criminal history of a šregistered sex offender, except to describe the specific crimes of šwhich the registrant was convicted. Provides that any information identifying the victim by name, šbirthdate, address or relation to the registrant shall be excluded. Requires DOJ to maintain a subdirectory of persons convicted of šspecified sex offenses, who are deemed by DOJ to be sexual habitual šoffenders and a threat to public safety. Mandates a copy of the subdirectory shall annually be distributed što the offices of county sheriffs and police departments for špurposes of public access and that information identifying the švictim shall be excluded. Directs income from the operation of the "900" number to be šdeposited in the Sexual Predator Public Information Account šestablished within DOJ for costs relating to establishing and šmaintaining the information and a sexual habitual offender šdirectory. (More) AB 2500 (Alby) Page 4 Repeals existing law that the statements, photos, fingerprints required by the sex offender registration statute shall not be open što inspection by any person other than a regularly employed peace šofficer or law enforcement officer. Creates a five year enhancement if a person uses information disclosed pursuant to the above provisions to commit a felony, in šaddition to any other applicable enhancements. Provides that any person who uses information disclosed pursuant to šthe above provisions, to commit a misdemeanor, shall be fined šbetween $500-$1,000, in addition to other authorized penalties or šfines. Provides that except to protect a child, the information disclosed špursuant to the above provisions can not be used for health šinsurance; insurance; loans; credit employment (unless otherwise špermitted); education, scholarships or fellowships; housing; or šbenefits privileges or services provided by any business. Provides civil liability for the misuse of the information for šbetween $250-$25,000. Makes it a wobbler for an insurance company to use the information šin determining whether or not to insure an individual. Provides that this bill does not authorize the publication, šdistribution, or disclosure of the address of any person about whom šinformation can be published, distributed, or disclosed. Authorizes the Department of Corrections or Department of the Youth šAuthority to collect a fine of an unspecified amount from a šregistrant. Outlines what must be included in the preamble played before a šcaller is connected to the DOJ operator. Requires the DOJ to provide an annual report to the Legislature šwith information regarding the use of the "900" number. Provides for a three and one-half year sunset clause. The purpose of this bill is to set up a "900" number within the DOJ što allow anyone to access information as to whether another šindividual is a registered sex offender who has been convicted of šspecified acts. (More) AB 2500 (Alby) Page 5 COMMENT 1) Need for the bill According to the author: California, like 23 other states, has a registration requirement for those convicted of felony sex offenses. Our state's Penal Code section 290 registrants currently number some 64,000 persons, about 60% of whom, or some 40,000 were found guilty of sex offenses against children. Registration information regarding these child molesters is now available only to law enforcement and investigative authorities, who use the information to find child molestation suspects after the fact. This bill! would allow broad public access to the š identities of these sociopaths, whom study after study has demonstrated are highly recidivistic, as a powerful preventive measure. Such access will: a) Empower parents to protect their children from exposure to persons who might do them harm; b) Unencumber law enforcement officers from restrictions that prevent them, even for public safety or investigative purposes, from revealing that certain persons are registered sex offenders; and c) Deter sex offenders from reoffending by increasing public awareness of their proclivities, thereby discouraging them from contact with children. 2) Potential for Floodgate Expansion of 900 Number If the public has the right to know by way of a "900" number whether a person is a sex offender registrant, will there be subsequent legislation to make information available by a "900" number whether a friend, date, coworker, colleague, tenant, boss, neighbor, community leader has been convicted or registered for any of the following offenses within a specified period of the conviction: a) Domestic violence; b) Rape (registration offense); (More) AB 2500 (Alby) Page 6 c) Dealing, using or possessing controlled substances š (registration for some offenses); d) Arson (registration offense); and e) Theft. In fact a July 5, 1994 Oakland Tribune editorial suggested the need for legislation which goes beyond those crimes for which registration is required, so the slippery slope argument is a valid one. 3. Access by telephone This bill would allow anyone to call up the "900" number set up by the DOJ and ask if another person has been convicted of specified sex offenses. a) "Reasonably appears to be" In the current amended version of the bill the person requesting information on another will be required to provide information the persons date of birth, social security number, California driver's license number or exact address along with additional information which may include height, weight, hair color, eye color, distinctive markings or ethnicity. If the caller does not know the person's birthdate, exact address, social security number or California driver's license number, then they must give any combination of at least six of the above listed factors in order to receive the information. When the information is given so that the person "reasonably appears" to be a registered sex offender, the DOJ will then give the caller the specific crime for which the person was required to register. The DOJ is under no obligation to make sure that the person about whom information is given is the same person. The bill does not state whether the DOJ is to err in favor of not releasing information or in favor of releasing information. Thus, if a description is close but not exact, should the information be released? It is not uncommon for people with common names to have credit problems not their own show up on their credit rating. This is often because the credit company has determined that they reasonably appear to be the other person, that is some of the factors match, their name, their zip code, maybe even a street name. Wrong credit information can take weeks or months to clear up. (More) AB 2500 (Alby) Page 7 Can someone ever clear up having been misidentified as a sex offender because they "reasonably appeared to be" someone else? šWill they even know why their child's friends are not allowed šat their house, or why the once friendly neighbor takes her šchild inside every time they are in their yard? b) Callers identification There is no requirement that the caller give their name or express any reason why they are requesting the information from the "900" number. Although this bill provides that it is a crime to use this information to commit a felony or misdemeanor and that civil liability is available for the misuse of the information it does nothing to stop the release of the information to those who might misuse the information. The sponsor asserts that the identification of the caller will be known because the "900" number will create a record. However, all this means is that there will be a record of where the call was made, not who made the call. The opponents suggest that some sort of paper trail should be created regarding who is asking for information. This would discourage those who may be inclined to use the information improperly. What if the person requesting the information has a violent history, for example is a known skinhead? The opponents also suggest that a person be required to give a reason for wanting the information. Preferably there would be some sort of good cause or reasonable suspicion standard for the release of the information. For example there is a new neighbor who is paying a great deal of attention to the kids in the neighborhood or their child is going to be taking piano lessons at someone's home and will be alone with them. Patircia Randa of Californians for Tougher Child Molestation Laws also believes that the caller should be required to give some sort of identification when making the call. She would even take it a step further and require anyone making the call to inform the DOJ of all persons they give the information to. She does not believe that vigilantism is beneficial to stopping child abuse and thus believes a record of who has this information should be kept in order to avoid such acts. The best way to create a paper trail and accomplish the goals of this bill would be to eliminate the phone access and instead require that the information be requested in writing. A person could then provide information as to who they are, why they want the information and then a description of the person about (More) AB 2500 (Alby) Page 8 whom they are seeking information. Requiring the request to be in writing may also assure that the decision of whether the person appears to be one who is registered is made rationally instead of a split second decision on the telephone. The sponsor asserts that a request in writing could take two weeks and that this is too long. The sponsor also asserts that a person could just lie about why they want the information, so that is why that should not be required. Is two weeks too long to watch your child and keep them away from a neighbor, piano lessons etc. while you wait for information? WOULD NOT REQUIRING THE REQUEST FOR INFORMATION TO BE IN WRITING INSTEAD OF BY TELEPHONE DISCOURAGE IMPROPER USES OF THE INFORMATION WHILE STILL UPHOLDING THE INTENT OF THE BILL? SHOULD NOT THE PERSON REQUESTING THE INFORMATION BE REQUIRED TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES? SHOULD A PERSON WHO RECEIVES INFORMATION FROM THE PHONE NUMBER BE REQUIRED TO INFORM THE DOJ OF ALL THOSE WHO THEY HAVE PASSED THE INFORMATION ON TO SO THAT THE DOJ WOULD BE ABLE TO TRACK ACTS OF DISCRIMINATION OR VIOLENCE? SHOULD THERE BE SOME KIND OF GOOD CAUSE OR REASONABLE SUSPICION REQUIREMENT BEFORE THE INFORMATION IS RELEASED? 3. Use of information (a) Child at risk This bill provides that a person is only authorized to use the information to "protect a child at risk". This bill does not define "a child at risk" nor does it define what can be done to protect the child. (b) Prohibited use This bill provides a non-exclusive list of persons authorized to use the information. Because the list is non-exclusive it has little relevance and in no way limits the use to specific persons. This bill also provides that except as authorized under another provision of law "use of the following information disclosed pursuant to this section is prohibited": (More) AB 2500 (Alby) Page 9 - health insurance - insurance - loans - credit - employment - education - housing and accommodations - benefits, privileges or services. This section appears to intend to state that the information disclosed under this provision cannot be used to discriminate against a person for any of the listed purposes. This needs to be clarified with a technical amendment. It is unclear if someone can use information disclosed under the provision to discriminate against a person if they are "protecting a child at risk". Could a landlord call about every potential tenant in order to protect children that live in the building or the neighborhood? Would a landlord run the risk of a lawsuit if they did not inquire about each and every tenant and a tenant subsequently did molest a child? Could a bank deny a home loan to anyone on the registered sex offender list if the bank thinks the home is too close to a school or knows that there are children in the neighborhood? Could a department store deny employment to someone on the list because children come into the store? It is not clear whether the ability to "protect a child at risk" outweighs the inability to use the information to deny something to the person. SHOULD NOT PROTECTING A CHILD AT RISK BE DEFINED? SHOULD NOT IT BE CLARIFIED WHETHER A PERSONS RIGHT TO PROTECT A CHILD AT RISK OUTWEIGHS THEIR PROHIBITION AGAINST USING THE INFORMATION AGAINST SOMEONE? SHOULD NOT IT BE CLARIFIED THAT THE INFORMATION OBTAINED THROUGH THIS PROVISION SHOULD NOT BE USED AGAINST A PERSON FOR THE LISTED PURPOSES? EVEN IF IT IS MADE CLEAR THAT THE INFORMATION IS NOT TO BE USED AGAINST A PERSON FOR PURPOSES OF HOUSING, EMPLOYMENT, INSURANCE, LOANS ETC. HOW CAN THERE BE ANY ASSURANCES THAT IT WON'T BE USED IN THIS MANNER IF THE PERSON REQUESTING THE (More) AB 2500 (Alby) Page 10 INFORMATION CAN REMAIN ANONYMOUS? 4. Notification of offender Opponents suggest that one way to protect the information from being used illegally is to notify the registered sex offender, by a form letter, that information about them has been requested by someone. The person who requested the information would not be identified. Opponents assert that notification of the offender would further the purposes of the author by reemphasizing to the offender that they are being watched and therefore should not try to commit any illegal acts. Some proponents have expressed concern that notification of the offender may lead to retaliation by the offender against any current victims or their families, whether or not the call had any connection to these victims. 5. Subdirectory This bill also provides that the DOJ shall create a subdirectory of persons deemed by the DOJ to be sexual habitual offenders and a threat to public safety. The subdirectory will contain photos of the offenders along with the offender's name, physical description, age, and distinctive markings. An address for the offender will not be given. The subdirectories are to be organized by county and ZIP Code and are to be distributed to all police and sheriff offices for public viewing. a) Sexual habitual offender Sexual habitual offender is not defined by this bill. The bill provides that the DOJ will deem persons habitual offenders. Opponents assert that sexual habitual offenders should either be defined in the bill or should include only those deemed to be habitual offenders by the parole board. Note: Penal Code 667.71 defines "habitual sexual offender" for purposes of punishment; Penal Code 13885.4 defines "sexual habitual offender" for purposes of the DOJ Sexual Habitual Offender Program. SHOULD NOT "HABITUAL SEXUAL OFFENDERS" BE DEFINED FOR PURPOSES OF THIS BILL? (More) AB 2500 (Alby) Page 11 b) Police can limit access The bill provides that sheriff and police departments may require a person to express an articuable purpose in order to have access to the subdirectory. SHOULD PEOPLE BE REQUIRED TO GIVE AN ARTICUABLE NEED BEFORE BEING GIVEN ACCESS TO THE SUBDIRECTORY? IS IT NECESSARY TO HAVE THE SUBDIRECTORY AND ACCESS TO THE INFORMATION THROUGH THE "900" NUMBER? 6. Liability a) Criminal This bill provides that anyone using this information to commit a felony is subject to a five year enhancement. If the information is used to commit a misdemeanor the person will be subject to an additional fine between $500- $1,000. HOW WILL A DISTRICT ATTORNEY BE ABLE TO PROVE THAT A PERSON USED THIS INFORMATION TO COMMIT A CRIME IF THE PERSON REQUESTING THE INFORMATION CAN REMAIN ANONYMOUS? IF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY CAN PROVE A CALL WAS MADE TO THE "900" NUMBER FROM THE PERSONS HOUSE HOW CAN THEY PROVE WHO MADE THE CALL OR WHO ASKED FOR INFORMATION ON THE PERSON AGAINST WHOM THE CRIME WAS COMMITTED? b) Criminal liability of insurer This bill provides that any person or corporation that uses information obtained through this provision to determine a persons eligibility for insurance is guilty of a wobbler and a fine of up to $50,000. Personal Insurance Federation of California objects to this provision. They assert that this information may be relevant, for example in ascertaining coverage for a home day-care. They assert that it would be in the public's best interest to deny coverage for a home day-care policy to someone who has been previously convicted of sexual abuse. c) Civil liability This bill provides that a person who uses this information for improper purposes may be civily liable for between $250 and $25,000. (More) AB 2500 (Alby) Page 12 WHAT IS THE STATE'S LIABILITY FOR MISTAKENLY IDENTIFYING SOMEONE AS A REGISTERED SEX OFFENDER? d) Copying or removal of subdirectory A person who makes a photocopy of the subdirectory is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail and/or a fine of $1,000. A person removing the subdirectory is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and/or a fine of $1,000. e) Other liability Since this information would be available to the public would a person be negligent for failing to check someone's background under various circumstances. For example could a person be liable for selling or renting their house to someone on the list because they knew or should have known they were a registered sex offender? Or for not warning the buyer of their house that the neighbor is a registered sex offender because they should have known he was? COULD A PERSON BE NEGLIGENT UNDER A KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN STANDARD FOR NOT GETTING INFORMATION ON ANOTHER SINCE THEY COULD HAVE? 7. Registered sex offenders This bill does not give people access to all registered sex offenders, but only to those who have committed specified offenses against children. Most of the specified offenses listed are felonies however Penal Code 647.6, one of the listed offenses can be a misdemeanor. SHOULD NOT THIS PROVISION BE LIMITED TO ACCESS TO INFORMATION REGARDING OFFENDERS WHO HAVE COMMITTED FELONIES? 8. Time limit A person is required to register as a sex offender indefinitely (if they were a juvenile when the offense was committed required registration ceases at 25). This bill does nothing to protect a person who may have committed an offense 15 years ago and is now minding their own business. (More) AB 2500 (Alby) Page 13 The opponents suggest that public access to this information should have some time requirement. Only people on parole or probation or a five year since release from prison requirement? This would allow those offenders who have turned their lives around to live in peace. SHOULD PUBLIC ACCESS BE LIMITED TO THOSE SEX OFFENDERS WHO ARE ON PAROLE OR PROBATION? OR TO THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN OFF PROBATION OR PAROLE FOR LESS THAN FIVE YEARS? 9. Exemptions? The National Association of Social Workers believes that access to the names of those first time offenders for whom treatment has been found to work will be detrimental to the successful treatment of those individuals. Part of the treatment includes teaching an individual to obey the structures set forth by society and to live within societies norms. By ostracizing and individual through public access to a past act, these individuals may again be brought outside the structural norms of society thereby harming their chance of recovery and making it more likely that they may again offend. Although, NASW will oppose this bill in any form, a way to deal with part of their opposition would be to allow a first time registered sex offender to petition the court to allow them, in the interest of justice, to be removed from the "900" number's list. Although, a registered sex offender can seek a certificate of rehabilitation under Penal Code 4852.13, this will not be obtained until therapy has been completed which may take years. Especially in the case of family child molesters, they are often ready to be placed back in the home, under certain conditions, prior to their completion of therapy. This may also go toward addressing the concern of one opponent from Carmichael who anonymously wrote. Her concern is that after five years of therapy her husband, who molested her daughter, is finally back in the home and the daughter is finally recovering from her trauma. She states that her husband has five more years of expensive therapy before obtaining his certificate of rehabilitation. She is concerned that if people can find out her husband is a registered sex offender,this will effect not only her husband's recovery but will also effect her daughter. This woman states that if she had not been sure the registry would remain confidential she would have fled the state with her daughter and not pressed charges. (More) AB 2500 (Alby) Page 14 SHOULD NOT THE COURT BE ABLE TO REMOVE A PERSON'S NAME FROM THE "900" NUMBER LIST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE? WILL PUBLIC ACCESS TO REGISTRANTS LEAD TO LESS REPORTING AND COOPERATION IN THE PROSECUTION OF INTER-FAMILIAL ABUSE CASES? 10. False sense of security? A San Jose Mercury News editorial on June 28, 1994 stated in part the following regarding this bill: AB 2500 is called the Child Protection Act of 1994, but it doesn't live up to its grand title. It won't protect children against most potential molesters: relatives and friends, who commit 96 percent of the rapes of girls under 12. It won't protect them against anyone with no criminal record. It won't throw resources into follow up counseling and surveillance for released offenders. The only way to protect children against known child molesters would be to send all molesters to prison for life. But we can't devote the entire state budget to prisons. At some point, people who have been dangerous in the past and may or may not be dangerous now are released back into society. For good reason, communities are particularly uneasy about taking back those whose crimes have high recidivism rates. But this dilemma is not about to be solved with a 900 number. AB 2500 will stir up hysteria and give some parents a false sense of security. It will give felons another reason to go underground instead of registering with local authorities. And it will do nothing to address the most likely sources of child molestation. We would expect more from the Child Protection Act of 1994. WILL NOT A 900 NUMBER GIVE PARENTS A FALSE SENSE OF SECURITY? 11. Alternatives? Under existing law a number of different types of employers can get access to the relevant criminal histories of employees. In fact school districts, private schools, day-care facilities and parks districts are all required to see if their employees or volunteers are sex offenders. Could additional security be added to parents by increasing the (More) AB 2500 (Alby) Page 15 categories of people who are required to have their background checked without making the information public? IS IT POSSIBLE TO LET MORE PEOPLE HAVE INFORMATION ON REGISTERED SEX OFFENDERS, BY INCREASING THE TARGETED GROUPS, WITHOUT MAKING IT PUBLIC? 12. Trustline program Under existing law, license-exempt child-care providers are allowed to initiate a background check through the DOJ. Providers who have no record of criminal convictions and child abuse records are listed in a statewide trustline registry. Parents can call this registry to determine if a person they are considering for a child-care provider is listed. Thus, a parent who wishes to have in home childcare already has the ability to determine that the potential provider does not have a record of criminal convictions or child abuse. 13. Funding Money from the "900" calls will be deposited in the Sexual Predator Public Information Account established in the DOJ for the purposes of implementation of this section. The Legislature may authorize any additional funds to be placed in the account. Initial money will come from a $500,000 loan to the Sexual Predator Public Information Account from another non General Fund account within the DOJ. 14. California Newspaper Publishers Association Opposition The California Newspaper Publishers Association opposes this bill because it requires citizens to pay for information they already purchased. They believe there should be no charge to access this information 15. Preamble The "900" number will have a preamble which must include the following: notice that the caller's telephone number will be recorded; the charges for use; notice that the caller must be 18 years or older; a warning that it is illegal to commit a crime or engage in discrimination against the registrant; notice that the caller must have the birthdate, address, social security number or CA Driver's License number of the individual along with additional identifying information; and a statement that suspected activity should be reported to local law (More) AB 2500 (Alby) Page 16 enforcement authorities. 16. Annual report This bill requires the DOJ to submit an annual report to the Legislature on the operation of the "900". The report is to contain a number of specified facts. 17. Registered sex offenders This bill also makes changes to the Penal Code section regarding registered sex offenders. This bill makes Penal Code 262, spousal rape, with force or violence a registered sex offense. This bill also requires requires registration as a sex offender by any person paroled from a youth authority in another state where they had been committed for an offense which if committed or attempted in this state would have been chargeable as one of a list of specified offenses. 18. Sunset This bill contains a three and one-half year sunset clause. **********