BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                  SB 57
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:   August 17, 2011

                        ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
                                Felipe Fuentes, Chair

                     SB 57 (Runner) - As Amended: April 12, 2011 

          Policy Committee:                              Public 
          SafetyVote:  4-1

          Urgency:     No                   State Mandated Local Program: 
          Yes    Reimbursable:              No

           SUMMARY  

          This bill requires registered sex offenders to provide law 
          enforcement all of their online names and addresses, e-mail 
          addresses, and instant messaging user names for all social 
          networking Web site accounts at the time of original 
          registration, and within 30 days of creating a new account, name 
          or address.      

          Failure to so comply would be a misdemeanor. 

           FISCAL EFFECT  

          1)Potentially state-reimbursable local law enforcement costs, 
            likely in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars, for 
            increased duties related to sex offender registration - 
            collecting and updating the online, e-mail, and instant 
            messaging addresses of about 100,000 registered sex offenders. 
            Though this cost has not been keyed as a reimbursable state 
            mandate by Legislative Counsel, the sheer number of offenders 
            and information may cause a local law enforcement agency to 
            file a test claim with the Commission on State Mandates. 

          2)Unknown, likely minor annual non-state reimbursable local law 
            enforcement and incarceration costs as a result of expanding 
            sex offender registration requirements, violation of which is 
            a misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in county jail. 
            These costs would be offset to a degree by increased fine 
            revenue. 

          3)Unknown, potentially moderate costs in excess of $150,000, to 
            the extent three or four registered felony sex offenders who 








                                                                  SB 57
                                                                  Page  2

            fail to report online addresses and names are charged with 
            felony failure to comply with sex offender registration 
            requirements, pursuant to Penal Code 290.018. While this bill 
            "notwithstands" 290.018, it is not clear that these offenders 
            could not also be charged with a felony.

            Moreover, by adding additional registration requirements, 
            failure to comply could result in a second or third strike, 
            potentially significantly increasing state prison costs. 

          4)Unknown, potentially moderate costs in excess of $150,000, to 
            the extent three or four registered sex offenders who fail to 
            report online addresses and names are convicted of a 
            misdemeanor, and as a result of the probation, are sent to 
            state prison.  

          5)Unknown moderate costs, potentially in the range of $150,000, 
            to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 
            (CDCR) to the extent additional parole agent training and 
            monitoring is required. 

          6)No direct costs to DOJ, as the bill only authorizes local law 
            enforcement to share the online address information with DOJ. 
            To the extent, however, the existence and availability of this 
            information encourages DOJ to pursue such information sharing, 
            DOJ would require staff and software to store and analyze the 
            information. These costs, while unknown, would likely be in 
            the range of several hundred thousand dollars. 
           
          COMMENTS  

           1)Rationale  . The author contends social networking sites and 
            e-mail "create a virtual shopping mall for sex offenders on 
            the prowl" and that requiring convicted offenders to register 
            online addresses provides law enforcement a tool to employ 
            against predators who attempt to misuse the Internet to find 
            potential victims.  

           2)Support.  A list of local law enforcement entities supports 
            this proposal.

           3)Concerns regarding efficacy and fiscal efficiency  . There is 
            nothing that prevents a registered sex offender from simply 
            changing an e-mail address. Nor is there any reason to assume 
            that a potential offender, intent on using an Internet site 








                                                                  SB 57
                                                                  Page  3

            for conversing or meeting potential victims, would register 
            the e-mail address used for this purpose. Assuming a 
            registrant changes e-mail addresses occasionally, or uses 
            different e-mail addresses for different purposes, all of the 
            e-mail addresses, and all of the changes, must be reported to 
            the registering law enforcement agency. Do local governments 
            have the personnel and capacity to obtain, process, and 
            potentially transmit all of this data? Given the ease with 
            which a person may change an e-mail address, given that many 
            registrants have been crime-free for years, given that the 
            crimes of many sex offenders had nothing to do with children, 
            given California's rare lifetime sex offender registration, 
            and considering the oft-stated estimate that 90% of child 
            abuse victims know the perpetrator, is this bill an efficient 
            use of limited law enforcement resources?

           4)Opposition  . According to the ACLU and California Public 
            Defenders Association, this bill is an inefficient and 
            ineffective use of law enforcement resources.  

           5)In 1996, California enacted "Megan's Law,"  allowing the public 
            to access an address list of registered sex offenders. Before 
            2003, the public could only obtain the information on the 
            Megan's Law list by calling a 900 number or visiting 
            designated law enforcement agencies. In 2003, DOJ put the 
            Megan's Law list of offenders on a public access website with 
            the offender's address, photo and list of offenses. For some 
            offenders with less serious offenses, only the ZIP code is 
            listed. Today anyone can peruse the website and see where 
            registered sex offenders are living in the community.  

          6)Related 2011 Legislation.  
           
              a)   AB 755 (Galgiani) requires every registered sex offender 
               to inform the law enforcement agency with which he or she 
               last registered of all Internet identifiers or service 
               providers. AB 755 failed passage in Assembly Public Safety. 
                 

             b)   AB 543 (Torres) makes it a misdemeanor for a registered 
               sex offender to use any Internet social networking Web 
               site, as specified. AB 543 was held on this committee's 
               Suspense File. 

             c)   AB 653 (Galgiani) requires a person required to register 








                                                                  SB 57
                                                                  Page  4

               as a sex offender to report his or her Internet accounts 
               and Internet identifiers to local law enforcement.  AB 653 
               was not  heard by Assembly Public Safety.  
           
           7)Previous Legislation  .  
                 
              a)   SB 1204 (Runner), 2010, was similar to SB 57 and was 
               held on this committee's Suspense File.

             b)   AB 1850 (Galgiani), 2010, required a person required to 
               register as a sex offender to register Internet accounts 
               and identifiers. AB 1850 was held on this committee's 
               Suspense File. 

             c)   AB 2208 (Torres), 2010, prohibited specified sex 
               offenders from accessing an Internet social networking Web 
               site. AB 2208 was held on this committee's Suspense File. 

             d)   AB 179 (Portantino), 2009, required registered sex 
               offenders to report all e-mail addresses and IM identities 
               at the time of registration. AB 179 was significantly 
               narrowed in this committee and ultimately amended into a 
               tax bill.   

             e)   AB 841 (Portantino), 2007-08, required registered sex 
               offenders to provide all e-mail addresses and IM addresses 
               to local law enforcement. AB 841 was significantly narrowed 
               in this committee and ultimately amended into a health care 
               bill. 
           
           
           



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