BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    

                   Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
                           Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair

                                          SB 622 (Corbett)
          Hearing Date: 5/2/2011          Amended: 4/7/2011
          Consultant: Jolie Onodera       Policy Vote: Public Safety 6-0


          BILL SUMMARY: SB 622 would clarify that sex offender 
          registration in California for an out-of-state conviction is 
          based on the elements of the conviction offense or proven or 
          stipulated facts in the record of conviction.
                            Fiscal Impact (in thousands)

           Major Provisions         2011-12      2012-13       2013-14     Fund
          Sex offender registration         Non-reimbursable local 

          Future incarceration   Unknown, potentially moderate General
                                 state costs and/or significant cost

          STAFF COMMENTS: 
          This bill seeks to address the holding of In re Rodden (2010) 
          186 Cal.App.4th 24, which concluded that an out-of-state 
          conviction requires a defendant to register as a sex offender in 
          California only when the least adjudicated elements of the 
          offense satisfy all of the elements of a crime enumerated in 
          Penal Code section 290(c) or when the foreign jurisdiction 
          required the defendant to register as a sex offender. 

          This bill clarifies existing statute to permit consideration of 
          adjudicated or stipulated non-hearsay facts on the record of 
          out-of-state convictions to determine whether the offense would 
          have been punishable as an offense requiring sex offender 
          registration under California law. The Attorney General's office 
          advises that, until the Rodden decision, this was the test 
          employed by the Department of Justice (DOJ), and is consistent 
          with the test applicable to sentencing laws. 

          The DOJ indicates approximately 80 sex offenders have averted 
          mandatory sex offender registration in California since the 
          Rodden ruling in late June 2010, and estimates approximately 100 
          cases will avoid registration annually in the absence of 
          enactment of this bill. As the provisions of this bill are 
          consistent with the processes employed by the DOJ prior to the 


          SB 622 (Corbett)
          Page 3

          Rodden decision, the workload impact to the DOJ will be minor 
          and absorbable. Additional sex offender registrants will result 
          in increased non-reimbursable local costs to enforce residency 
          restrictions placed on the additional registered sex offenders. 
          No additional global positioning system (GPS) tracking costs 
          would be incurred due to the provisions of this bill, as 
          authority to require GPS monitoring would be based on the 
          requirement established in the state where the offense was 
          committed. These costs would be incurred notwithstanding the 
          provisions of this bill.

          The requirement to register is initiated at the time the sex 
          offender is aware of the requirement, whether through 
          notification from his or her out-of-state parole officer upon 
          release or through notice by the DOJ or local law enforcement if 
          the individual is already residing in the State. Any person who 
          is required to register and who willfully violates this 
          requirement is guilty of a misdemeanor or felony, depending on 
          the seriousness of the offense for which they were convicted. 
          Both the DOJ and law enforcement have indicated that it is rare 
          for a sex offender to be prosecuted for non-registry once he or 
          she is aware of the registration requirement, but to the extent 
          a sex offender should knowingly fail to register and be 
          successfully prosecuted, moderate state or local incarceration 
          costs could result.

          Alternatively, requiring mandatory registration of these 
          high-risk sex offenders may result in avoided crimes, 
          prosecution, and incarceration, resulting in significant local 
          and General Fund cost savings in the future.