BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó

                                                                  SB 756
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:  July 5, 2011
          Counsel:       Sandy Uribe

                                 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 

             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 

          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 

             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 

          "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 

          "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."


          Department of Justice (Sponsor)
          Long Beach City Attorney
          Peace Officers Research Association
          San Luis Obispo County District Attorney


                                                                  SB 756
                                                                  Page  6

          California Coalition for Women Prisoners

          Analysis Prepared by  :    Sandy Uribe / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744