BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 756
Page 1
Date of Hearing: July 5, 2011
Counsel: Sandy Uribe
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Tom Ammiano, Chair
SB 756 (Price) - As Amended: May 10, 2011
As Proposed to be Amended in Committee
SUMMARY : Clarifies jurisdiction for prosecuting sex-offender
registrants who fail to comply with registration requirements
upon release from custody. Specifically, this bill :
1)Provides that if a person required to register as a sex
offender fails to do so after release from incarceration, the
prosecutor in the jurisdiction where the person was to be
paroled or placed on probation may request an arrest warrant
for the person, and is authorized to prosecute that person for
failure to register.
2)Provides that if a person subject to registration is released
from custody but not on parole or probation at the time of
release, the district attorney in the following applicable
jurisdiction shall have the authority to prosecute that
person:
a) If the person was previously registered, in the
jurisdiction in which the person last registered.
b) If there is no prior registration, but the person
indicated on the Department of Justice notice of sex
offender registration requirement form where he or she
expected to reside, in the jurisdiction where he or she
expected to reside.
c) Alternatively, in the jurisdiction where the offense
subjecting the person to registration was committed.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires persons convicted of specified sex offenses to
register for the rest of his or her life, with the appropriate
law enforcement authorities where they reside. ĘPenal Code
SB 756
Page 2
sections 290(b) and 290.012.]
2)Requires a sex offender registrant who has more than one
residence at which he or she regularly resides to register in
each jurisdiction where he or she regularly resides, and if
multiple residences are in the same jurisdiction, the
registrant is required to provide all of the addresses in the
jurisdiction. (Penal Code Section 290.010.)
3)Requires sex offender registrants to annually update
registration information, except transient sex offender
registrants must update registration information no less than
every 30 days after the initial registration. (Penal Code
Sections 290.011 and 290.012.)
4)Requires a sex offender registrant who moves to inform the law
enforcement agency where he or she last registered of the new
address or location, in addition to notifying the local
authorities in the new jurisdiction. (Penal Code Sections
290.013 and 290.)
5)Requires persons convicted of specified sex offenses to
register, or re-register if the person has been previously
registered, upon release from incarceration, placement,
commitment, or release on probation. ĘPenal Code Section
290.015(a).]
6)Provides that willful violation of any part of the
registration requirements constitutes a misdemeanor if the
offense requiring registration was a misdemeanor, and
constitutes a felony if the offense requiring registration was
a felony or if the person has a prior conviction of failing to
register. ĘPenal Code Section 290.018(a)(b).]
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "SB 756 is a
simple clarification of the jurisdiction authority of law
enforcement agencies with respect to sex offenders who
undermine registration requirements.
"SB 756 would amend Penal Code section 290.015 to:
SB 756
Page 3
a) "Provide that an offender who fails to register
following release from custody can be prosecuted in any
jurisdiction in which he or she is physically present when
arrested.
b) "Require sex offender registrants to provide proof of
residence at compliance checks by local and state law
enforcement only at a place of residence."
2)Venue Provisions : "Venue" refers to the territorial
jurisdiction in which a case may be brought to trial. ĘSee
Penal Code Sections 691(b) and 777.] Venue can be conferred
by statute or by the consent of the parties. ĘCasey v.
Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 837, 843.] Generally,
venue lies in the superior court of the county in which the
crime was committed, and a defendant may be tried there. But
there are exceptions to this general rule. ĘPeople v. Posey
(2004) 32 Cal.4th 193, 199.] For example, when part of a
crime is committed in one jurisdictional territory and another
part of the crime in another, or when the acts or effects of
the offense or those requisite to its consummation occur in
two or more jurisdictional territories, the crime may be tried
in a competent court within either jurisdictional territory.
(See Penal Code Section 781.)
In People v. Britt (2004) 32 Cal.4th 944, the defendant required
to register as a sex offender moved from Sacramento County to
El Dorado County without notifying the authorities in either
county of his move thereby violating two provisions of the Sex
Offender Registration Act. (Id. at p. 949.) The defendant
was first charged in Sacramento County, pleaded no contest to
the charge, and was sentenced to probation with 180 days in
county jail. (Ibid.) He was charged in El Dorado County
while the charges were still pending in Sacramento County, and
the El Dorado prosecutor agreed to wait until the Sacramento
County was concluded. (Ibid.) At the conclusion of the
Sacramento County case, El Dorado County proceeded with its
prosecution which was affirmed on appeal. The Supreme Court
reversed the judgment that resulted from the second
prosecution, finding that it violated the multiple prosecution
prohibition of Penal Code Section 654. (Id. at pp. 954-956.)
However, in so doing, the court noted that "either county would
be a proper venue in which to try both crimes." (People v.
SB 756
Page 4
Britt, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 955.) "When a public offense
is committed in part in one jurisdictional territory and in
part in another, or the acts or effects thereof constituting
or requisite to the consummation of the offense occur in two
or more jurisdictional territories, the jurisdiction of such
offense is in any competent court within either jurisdictional
territory. Although this statute speaks in terms of
jurisdiction, it is actually a venue statute. It must be
given a liberal interpretation to permit trial in a county
where only preparatory acts have occurred . . . . The
notification requirements of both subdivisions (a) and (f) of
section 290 were triggered by defendant's moving from
Sacramento County to El Dorado County. This single move
necessarily involved preparatory acts in both counties." (Id.
at pp. 954-955, citations omitted.)
Consistent with Britt, surpa, 32 Cal.4th 944 and with Penal Code
Section 781, the venue provisions of this bill clarify that
when a defendant fails to register as sex offender, venue is
proper in multiple jurisdictions.
3)Argument in Support : According to the Department of Justice ,
the sponsor of this bill, "Currently, local jurisdictions have
a difficult time prosecuting sex offenders who break the law
by failing to register. It is often difficult, if not
impossible, for prosecutors to prove a sex offender has been
in their local jurisdiction for five days, even though the
offender may have absconded immediately after release from
prison and never registered while living in California for
months or years. This legislation would make it clear that
venue is proper wherever the absconding offender is found
within the state. It would also require that the offender who
leaves the state after release from incarceration, but prior
to registration, must notify law enforcement. Under existing
law, California law enforcement and the Department of Justice
have no way to know when an offender who was notified of the
duty to register prior to release from incarceration has left
California.
"Additionally, sex offenders are currently only required to show
proof of residence upon release from custody, once a year, or
whenever they move. Local law enforcement and state Sexual
Assault Felony Enforcement (SAFE) teams often contact these
offenders in order to determine whether they are actually
residing where they claim. There is no requirement that these
SB 756
Page 5
sex offenders show proof of residence when contacted by state
or local law enforcement during these compliance checks. This
legislation would make it clear that such proof of residence
must be provided by these offenders."
4)Argument in Opposition : According to the California Coalition
for Women Prisoners (CCWP), "CCWP opposes expansions to
California's harsh sex offender laws because evidence strongly
suggest that these laws have failed to fulfill their promise
of providing safety and security to children and other
potential victims of sexual violence. Despite a significant
increase in various types of sex offense laws, which include
registration requirements, community notification, and strict
residency restrictions, there is little evidence to show that
the policies have reduced incidents of sexual violence against
children and adults. . . .
"Reasons we oppose increasing the number of people who have to
register for sex offenses include:
"Contrary to the myth of the sexually violent pedophile roaming
the streets in search of victims, over 90% of child sexual
abuse happens from individuals known and often trusted by the
victim. Sex offender laws offer little protection to children
who are sexually abused by family members and other trusted
adults.
"The huge increase in the number of people required to register
as sex offenders has led to a significant strain on law
enforcement who are not able to adequately monitor those
individuals with the greatest rights of committing new
offenses. A misconception has grown that all people convicted
of sex crimes are child rapists and murderers. In reality,
the broad net of sex offender laws ensnares individual who
actually pose no risk of committing such heinous crimes."
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Department of Justice (Sponsor)
Long Beach City Attorney
Peace Officers Research Association
San Luis Obispo County District Attorney
SB 756
Page 6
Opposition
California Coalition for Women Prisoners
Analysis Prepared by : Sandy Uribe / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744