BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                     SB 448


                                                                    Page  1





          Date of Hearing:  June 21, 2016


          Counsel:               Stella Choe








                         ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY


                       Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr., Chair





          SB  
          448 (Hueso) - As Amended January 4, 2016


                       As Proposed to be Amended in Committee








          SUMMARY:  Requires a person convicted of a felony, on or after  
          January 1, 2017, for which the person is required to register as  
          a sex offender, to register his or her Internet identifiers, as  
          defined, to law enforcement.  Specifically, this bill:  









                                                                     SB 448


                                                                    Page  2





          1)Replaces sections enacted by Proposition 35, also known as the  
            Californians Against Sexual Exploitation Act (CASE Act),  
            approved by California voters on November 6, 2012, that have  
            been enjoined by pending litigation.

          2)States that the provisions of this bill applies to a person  
            who is convicted of a felony on or after January 1, 2017,  
            requiring registration pursuant to the Sex Offender  
            Registration Act, if a court determines at the time of  
            sentencing that any of the following apply:

             a)   The person used the Internet to collect any private  
               information to identify a victim of the crime to further  
               the commission of the crime;

             b)   The person was convicted of specified sections  
               prohibiting human trafficking and used the internet to  
               traffic a victim of the crime; or,

             c)   The person was convicted of specified sections  
               prohibiting child pornography and used the internet to  
               prepare, publish, distribute, send, exchange, or download  
               the obscene matter or matter depicting a minor engaging in  
               sexual conduct, as defined.

          3)Defines, for purposes of this bill, "Internet identifier" to  
            mean "any electronic mail address or user name used for  
            instant messaging or social networking that is actually used  
            for direct communication between users on the Internet in a  
            manner that makes the communication not accessible to the  
            general public."  "Internet identifier" does not include  
            Internet passwords, date of birth, social security number, or  
            PIN number.

          4)Defines, for purposes of this bill, "private information" to  
            mean "any information that identifies or describes an  
            individual, including, but not limited to, his or her name;  
            electronic mail, chat, instant messenger,  social networking,  
            or similar name used for Internet communication; social  








                                                                     SB 448


                                                                    Page  3





            security number; account numbers; passwords; personal  
            identification numbers; physical description; physical  
            location; home address; home telephone number; education;  
            financial matters; medical or employment history; and  
            statements made by, or attributed to, the individual."

          5)Requires persons subject to the bill's provisions to send  
            written notice to the law enforcement agency or agencies with  
            which he or she is currently registered when he or she  
            establishes or changes an Internet identifier within 30  
            working days of the addition or change, as specified, and  
            requires the law enforcement agency to make this information  
            available to the Department of Justice (DOJ).

          6)Specifies that a person who fails to provide his or her  
            Internet identifiers, as required by this bill, is guilty of a  
            misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not  
            to exceed six months.

          7)Excludes Internet identifiers from the information that law  
            enforcement may disclose to the public regarding a person  
            required to register as a sex offender when necessary to  
            ensure the public safety concerning that specific person.

          8)Provides, notwithstanding any other law, a designated law  
            enforcement entity shall only use an Internet identifier or  
            release that Internet identifier to another law enforcement  
            entity, for the purpose of investigating a sex-related crime,  
            a kidnapping, or human trafficking.

          9)Authorizes a designated law enforcement entity to disclose or  
            authorize persons or entities to disclose an Internet  
            identifier if required by court order.

          10)States the Legislative finding and declaration that in order  
            to protect the rights afforded by the First Amendment to the  
            United States Constitution, it is necessary that Internet  
            identifier information provided to law enforcement agencies by  
            registrable sex offenders as part of their registration not be  








                                                                     SB 448


                                                                    Page  4





            made generally available to the public.

          11)States that it is the intent of the Legislature to further  
            the objectives of the CASE Act, an initiative measure enacted  
            by the approval of Proposition 35 at the November 6, 2012,  
            statewide general election, by amending its provisions to  
            conform with the requirements of the court in the case of Doe  
            v. Harris (Case numbers 13-15263 and 13-15267).

          EXISTING LAW:  

          1)Requires a person convicted of enumerated sex offenses and  
            sexually-related human trafficking crimes to register within  
            five working days of coming into a city or county, with law  
            enforcement officials, as specified.   (Pen. Code,  290.)  

          2)Provides generally that a person's sex offender registration  
            must be updated annually, within five working days of a  
            registrant's birthday.  (Pen. Code,  290.012, subd. (a).)

          3)Specifies that a transient sex offender registrant must  
            register in the jurisdiction where the registrant is  
            physically present every 30 days, as specified, as well as  
            annually, within five working days' of the registrant's  
            birthday. (Pen. Code,  290.011.)

          4)States that sex offender registrants must provide the  
            following information:

             a)   A signed statement giving information as required by the  
               DOJ and giving the name and address of the person's  
               employer and place of employment;

             b)   The fingerprints and a current photograph of the person  
               taken by the registering official;

             c)   The license plate number of any vehicle owned by,  
               regularly driven by, or registered in the name of the  
               person;








                                                                     SB 448


                                                                    Page  5






             d)   A signed statement by the registrant acknowledging that  
               he or she may have a duty to register in any other state  
               upon relocation; and,

             e)   Adequate proof of residence.  (Pen. Code,  290.015.)

          5)Provides that it is a crime for any person who is required to  
            register to willfully violate the requirements of the Sex  
            Offender Registration Act.  (Pen. Code  290.018.)  

          6)States that a person who is required to register as a sex  
            offender based on a misdemeanor conviction who willfully  
            violates any requirement of the Sex Offender Registration Act  
            is guilty of a misdemeanor.  (Pen. Code  290.018, subd. (a).)

          7)Provides that a person who is required to register as a sex  
            offender based on a felony conviction who willfully violates  
            any requirement of the Sex Offender Registration Act is guilty  
            of a felony.  (Pen. Code  290.018, subd. (b).)

          8)Specifies that any person who fails to provide proof of  
            residence regardless of the offense upon which the duty to  
            register is based, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by  
            imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding six months.  (Pen.  
            Code,  290.018, subd. (h).)

          FISCAL EFFECT:  Unknown.

          COMMENTS:  

          1)Author's Statement:  According to the author, "In November of  
            2012 California voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 35,  
            also known as the Californians Against Sexual Exploitation Act  
            (CASE Act). The act is the most popular initiative in  
            California's history, and was approved with 81% of the vote  
            and is the first initiative to receive over 10 million votes.   
            California voters wanted to insure that sex offenders provide  
            their online identities to law enforcement. Unfortunately, the  








                                                                     SB 448


                                                                    Page  6





            9th Circuit Court of Appeals has rendered that portion of the  
            proposition unconstitutional. This bill addresses those  
            constitutional concerns. 

            "The internet, with all of its benefits, has become a place  
            for sexual predators to thrive. In June of this year the  
            federal government in Operation Broken Heart arrested 1140  
            child predators in 41 states that were using the internet to  
            distribute child pornography, entice children for sexual  
            purposes, sell children into prostitution, and engage in  
            sexual tourism. This bill would ensure that sex offenders who  
            have already used the internet in the commission of their  
            crime provide their online identifiers to law enforcement.  
            This vital tool will assist law enforcement if they ever have  
            to investigate these individuals again for future violations."

          2)Sex Offender Registration:  Existing law specifies that if a  
            person has been convicted of a sexually based offense, he or  
            she is required to register as a sex offender.  (Pen. Code,   
            290, subd. (c) (includes all offenses where registration is  
            required if committed on or after July 1, 1944).)  California  
            requires sex offenders to register for life, unlike some other  
            jurisdictions that have a tiering system in place that  
            dictates the duration of time an offender must register as a  
            sex offender.  This means that even after a person has  
            completed probation or parole, the person will still be  
            monitored as a sex offender for the rest of his or her life.   
            (Pen. Code,  290, subd. (b).) 

          "The purpose of [Penal Code Section 290] is to assure that  
            persons convicted of the crimes enumerated therein shall be  
            readily available for police surveillance at all times because  
            the Legislature deemed them likely to commit similar offenses  
            in the future.  The statute is thus regulatory in nature,  
            intended to accomplish the government's objective by mandating  
            certain affirmative acts."  (In re Leon Casey Alva (2004) 33  
            Cal.4th 254, 264.)  

            The registration statute does not distinguish crimes based on  








                                                                     SB 448


                                                                    Page  7





            severity and instead requires any person convicted of a listed  
            crime to register annually within five days of his or her  
            birthday.  (Pen. Code,  290.012, subd. (a).)  Transient  
            offenders, however, must register every 30 days in addition to  
            the annual registration.  (Pen. Code,  290.011.)  Although  
            most registerable offenses are felonies, there some alternate  
            felony/misdemeanor penalties and a few straight misdemeanors.   
            (Pen. Code,  243.4 (sexual battery); Pen. Code,  266c  
            (obtaining sexual consent by fraud); Pen. Code,  311.1,  
            311.2(c), 311.4, 311.11 (child pornography); Pen. Code,   
            647.6 (annoying or molesting a child); and Pen. Code,   
            314(1)(2) (indecent exposure).)  

          3)Proposition 35:  In November of 2012, California voters  
            enacted Proposition 35, which modified many provisions of  
            California's human trafficking laws. Specifically, Proposition  
            35 expanded the definition of human trafficking and increased  
            criminal penalties and fines for human trafficking offenses.   
            The proposition specified that the fines collected are to be  
            used for victim services and law enforcement.  In criminal  
            trials, the proposition makes evidence of sexual conduct by a  
            victim of human trafficking inadmissible for the purposes of  
            attacking the victim's credibility or character in court.  The  
            proposition also lowered the evidentiary requirements for  
            showing of force in cases of minors. 

          Proposition 35 also required all registered sex offenders to  
            provide the names of their Internet providers and identifiers  
            to local law enforcement agencies. Such identifiers include  
            e-mail addresses, user names, screen names, or other personal  
            identifiers for Internet communication and activity.  The  
            proposition required a registrant who changes his or her  
            Internet service account or changes or adds an Internet  
            identifier to notify law enforcement within 24 hours of such  
            changes.  (See Proposition 35 voter guide available at the  
            Secretary of State's website,  
            <  http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/past/2012/general/proposition 
            s/35/analysis.htm  > (as of Apr. 22, 2015.)









                                                                     SB 448


                                                                    Page  8





          Immediately following the passage of Proposition 35, a District  
            Court granted an order enjoining the implementation of the  
            parts of the proposition that requires registered sex  
            offenders to provide identifying information about their  
            online accounts to local law enforcement agencies.  On  
            November 18, 2014, the Ninth Circuit Court affirmed the  
            District Court's order granting the preliminary injunction,  
            concluding that "Appellees are likely to succeed on the merits  
            of their First Amendment challenge." (See Doe v. Harris, 2014  
            U.S. App. LEXIS 21808 (9th Cir. Nov. 18, 2014).)  

            Due to litigation, the provisions in Proposition 35 related to  
            Internet identifiers have never gone into effect.  Currently,  
            these provisions are pending a permanent injunction because  
            the court has declared them to violate the First Amendment of  
            the United States Constitution and therefore cannot be  
            enforced.  (See Order Staying Case of April 7, 2015 and  
            Scheduling Order of October 26, 2015, 12-cv-05713-THE, Doe v.  
            Harris.)  Should this bill be signed into law, the bill's  
            contents will likely have to be reviewed by the lower court  
            that issued the original injunction to determine whether the  
            Constitutional concerns have been addressed.  

          4)First Amendment Considerations: The First Amendment to the  
            United States Constitution guarantees to all citizens the  
            right to freedom of speech and association.  The pertinent  
            Clause of the First Amendment, applied to the States through  
            the Fourteenth amendment.  (Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88,  
            95 (1940) provides that "Congress shall make no law . . .  
            abridging the freedom of speech . . . . "  (United States  
            Constitution. Amend. I.)  Generally, sex offenders who have  
            completed their terms of imprisonment and completed parole  
            have all of the other rights and benefits accorded to all  
            citizens.

            In Reno v. ACLU (1997) 521 U.S. 844, the Supreme Court stated  
            that "The Internet is an international network of  
            interconnected computers . . . enab[ling] tens of millions of  
            people to communicate with one another and to access vast  








                                                                     SB 448


                                                                    Page  9





            amounts of information from around the world.  The Internet is  
            a unique and wholly new medium of worldwide human  
            communication."  (Id. at 850.)

            "Anyone with access to the Internet may take advantage of a  
            wide variety of communication and information retrieval  
            methods.  These methods are constantly evolving and difficult  
            to categorize precisely.  [A]ll of these methods can be used  
            to transmit text; most can transmit sound, pictures and moving  
            video images.  Taken together, these tools constitute a unique  
            medium - known to its members as cyberspace - located in no  
            particular geographical location but available to anyone,  
            anywhere in the world, with access to the Internet."

            Following its expansive discussion of the many benefits of the  
            Internet, the Court turned its attention to First Amendment  
            issues, finding that the "CDA [Communications Decency Act] is  
            a content-based regulation of speech.  The vagueness of such a  
            regulation raises special First Amendment concerns because of  
            its obvious chilling effect on free speech," citing Gentile v.  
            State Bar of Nevada (1991) 501 U.S. 1030, 1048-1051.  The  
            Court further stated that the CDA, as a criminal statute, "may  
            well cause speakers to remain silent rather than communicate  
            even arguably unlawful words, ideas, and images."  As a  
            practical matter, this increased deterrent effect, coupled  
            with the risk of discriminatory enforcement of vague  
            regulations, poses greater First Amendment concerns than those  
            implicated by the civil regulations reviewed in Denver Area  
            Educational Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. F.C.C., 518  
            U.S. 727 (1996).

            "Given the vague contours of the statute, it unquestionably  
            silences some speakers whose messages would be entitled to  
            constitutional protection.  The CDA's burden on protected  
            speech cannot be justified if it could be avoided by a more  
            carefully drafted statute.  We are persuaded that the CDA  
            lacks the precision that the First Amendment requires when a  
            statute regulates the content of speech.  In order to deny  
            minors access to potentially harmful speech, the CDA  








                                                                     SB 448


                                                                    Page  10





            effectively suppresses a large amount of speech that adults  
            have a constitutional right to receive and to address to one  
            another.  That burden on adult speech is unacceptable if less  
            restrictive alternatives would be at least as effective in  
            achieving the legitimate purpose that the statute was enacted  
            to serve."  (Id. at 874.)  

            The Court further held that the Government may not reduce the  
            adult population to only what is fit for children.   
            "Regardless of the strength of the government's interest in  
            protecting children, the level of discourse reaching a mailbox  
            simply cannot be limited to that which would be suitable for a  
            sandbox," citing Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp., 463  
            U.S. 60, 74-75 (1983).

            The Court concluded, "As a matter of constitutional tradition,  
            in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we presume that  
            governmental regulation of the content of speech is more  
            likely to interfere with the free exchange of ideas than to  
            encourage it.  The interest in encouraging freedom of  
            expression in a democratic society outweighs any theoretical  
            but unproven benefit of censorship."  (Id at 885.)

            The United States Supreme Court reaffirmed the principles  
            recited by Reno v. ACLU, supra, in Ashcroft v. ACLU (2004) 542  
            U.S. 656, when it stated, "The purpose [of the strict scrutiny  
            test] is to ensure that speech is restricted no further than  
            necessary to achieve the goal, for it is important to assure  
            that legitimate speech is not chilled or punished.  For that  
            reason, the test does not begin with the status quo of  
            existing regulations, then ask whether the challenged  
            restriction has some additional ability to achieve Congress'  
            legitimate interest.  Any restriction on speech could be  
            justified under that analysis.  Instead, the court should ask  
            whether the challenged regulation is the least restrictive  
            means among available, effective alternatives."  (Id.)

            In Ashcroft v. The Free Speech Coalition (2002) 535 U.S. 234,  
            the Supreme Court further stated that "the mere tendency of  








                                                                     SB 448


                                                                    Page  11





            speech to encourage unlawful acts is not a sufficient reason  
            for banning it.  The government 'cannot constitutionally  
            premise legislation on the desirability of controlling a  
            person's private thoughts,' " citing Stanley v. Georgia (1969)  
            394 U.S. 557, 566.  First amendment freedoms are most in  
            danger when the government seeks to control thought or to  
            justify its laws for that impermissible end.  The right to  
            think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be  
            protected from the government because speech is the beginning  
            of thought.

            "[T]he government may not prohibit speech because it increases  
            the chances that an unlawful act will be committed at some  
            indefinite future time," Ashcroft v. The Free Speech  
            Coalition, supra, at 253, citing Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S.  
            105, 108 (1973).  "[T]he government has shown no more than a  
            remote connection between speech that might encourage thoughts  
            or impulses and any resulting child abuse.  Without a  
            significantly stronger, more direct connection, the Government  
            may not prohibit speech on the ground that it may encourage  
            pedophiles to engage in illegal conduct."  (Ashcroft, supra,  
            at 253-254.)

            The provisions in the CASE Act that this bill seeks to replace  
            have been found to violate the First Amendment.  (Doe v.  
            Harris (9th Cir. 2014) 772 F.3d 563.)  To begin its analysis,  
            the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal determined the Act to be a  
            content-neutral restriction, even though the Act singles out  
            registered sex-offenders as a category of speakers. (Id. at  
            575.) The Court's rationale was that since the restrictions in  
            the Act did not target certain types of speech, it was  
            content-neutral, thus intermediate scrutiny was applied.  In  
            order to survive this standard, the Act must be "narrowly  
            tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and . .  
            . leave open ample alternative channels for communication of  
            the information." (Id. at 576-577, citing Ward v. Rock Against  
            Racism (1989) 491 U.S. 781, 791.)  The Court acknowledged that  
            California has a substantial interest in protecting children  
            from sex offenders who use the internet to facilitate the  








                                                                     SB 448


                                                                    Page  12





            internet to facilitate that exploitation. (Id. at 577.)   
            However, the statute must not "burden substantially more  
            speech than is necessary to further the government's  
            legitimate interests." (Ibid.)  

            The Court concluded that the statute violated the First  
                                                                                  Amendment by unnecessarily chilling speech in at least three  
            ways: (1) the Act does not make clear what sex offenders are  
            required to report, (2) there are insufficient safeguards  
            preventing the public release of the information sex offenders  
            do report, and (3) the 24-hour reporting requirement is  
            onerous and overbroad. (Ibid.)  This bill narrows the  
            applicability of its requirements and places safeguards on  
            when this information should be disclosed in order to address  
            these specific concerns.
            
          5)Constitutional Challenges to Similar Policy in Other  
            Jurisdictions:  Recently similar statutes have been found to  
            be unconstitutional in Illinois, Michigan and Nebraska.  In  
            Illinois, a state court ruled that an Illinois law that  
            requires all email addresses and sites a sex
            offender uses or plans to use, including Facebook and Ebay, to  
            be registered with police is overly broad and therefore  
            unconstitutional.  The judge that issued the order stated that  
            "ordering a sex offender to report all access to Internet  
            sites 'clearly chills offenders from engaging in expressive  
            activity that is otherwise perfectly proper, and the statute  
            is therefore insufficiently narrow.'" He additionally noted  
            that the purpose of restrictions on sex offenders who live in  
            the community "are not meant as a penalty, but for the safety  
            of those living around them."  (Brady-Lunny, "Judge: Sex  
            Offender Rule Unconstitutional"  
            <  http://www.pantagraph.com/news/judge-sex-offender-requirement- 
            is-unconstitutional/article_8c569d46-b7a8-5175-8359-dfe58c0ab7a 
            6.html  > (June 11, 2015).) 

            Michigan and Nebraska have also had similar statutes enjoined  
            or held unconstitutional.  (Doe v. Snyder , 2015 U.S. Dist.  
            LEXIS 41675 (E.D.Mich. Mar. 13, 2015); (Doe v. Nebraska  








                                                                     SB 448


                                                                    Page  13





            (D.Neb. 2012) 898 F. Supp. 2d 1086).)  On the other hand, the  
            Tenth Circuit Court found that Utah's statute did not violate  
            the Constitution.  (Doe v. Schurtleff (10th Cir. 2010) 628  
            F.3d 1217.)  The rulings by courts in these other  
            jurisdictions are not binding on California courts.  Thus,  
            whether this bill adequately addresses the Ninth Circuit  
            Court's concerns raised in Doe v. Harris (2014 U.S. App. LEXIS  
            21808 (9th Cir. Nov. 18, 2014)) is yet to be determined.  
            
          6)Argument in Support:  According to Safer California  
            Foundation, a co-sponsor of this bill, "In order to provide  
            law enforcement with a tool to investigate sex trafficking  
            online, Proposition 35 required all registered sex offenders  
            in California to submit their Internet identifiers to the  
            local law enforcement agencies in the jurisdiction in which  
            they are registered. 
            
            "Between July 1, 2010 and June 30, 2012, California's nine  
            anti-trafficking task forces initiated 2,552 investigations,  
            identified 1,277 victims of human trafficking, and arrested  
            1,798 individuals.  72% were Americans. 

            "In the age of the internet, human trafficking has become  
            increasingly easier for traffickers to find and abuse their  
            victims.  According to a 2012 report by the Attorney General,  
            'The business of sex trafficking, in particular, has moved  
            online.  Traffickers use the Internet to increase their reach,  
            both in recruiting victims through social media and finding  
            clients via advertisement posted on classified advertising  
            websites."
               


          7)Argument in Opposition:  According to California Reform Sex  
            Offender Laws, "Requiring an individual to reveal his or her  
            internet identifier is a violation of that individual's  
            constitutional right of free speech.  Specifically, it is a  
            violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution  
            which protects a person's right to exercise free of speech  








                                                                     SB 448


                                                                    Page  14





            'anonymously.'  

            "The U.S. Supreme Court recently determined: 'Anonymity is a  
            shield from the tyranny of the majority.  It thus exemplifies  
            the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First  
            Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from  
            retaliation - and their ideas from suppression - at the hand  
            of an intolerant society.'  McIntyre v. Ohio Elections  
            Commission, 514 U.S. 334, 357 (1995)

            "If SB 448 becomes law, the anonymity of registered citizens,  
            who are unpopular individuals in today's intolerant society,  
            would be suppressed.  That is, they will be unable to express  
            their opinions on topics such as SB 448 due to fear of  
            retaliation.

            "The right of anonymous speech is of great importance in the  
            context of internet sites.  The U.S. Supreme Court has  
            strongly implied and lower appellate courts have affirmatively  
            ruled that when accessed from one's home the internet  
            constitutes a "public forum" for purposes of the First  
            Amendment.  Doe v. Harris, 772 F.3d 563, 574 (9th Cir. 2014),  
            quoting Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 870 (1997)."
            
          8)Prior Legislation:

             a)   AB 755 (Galgiani), of the 2011-12 Legislation Session,  
               would have required every registered sex offender to inform  
               the law enforcement agency with which he or she last  
               registered of all Internet identifiers or service providers  
               and must sign a statement acknowledging this  
               responsibility.  AB 755 failed passage in this Committee.

             b)   AB 543 (Torres), of the 2011-12 Session, would have made  
               it a misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in the  
               county jail and/or a fine of not more than $1,000, for any  
               person who is granted probation or placed on parole for the  
               conviction of a crime that requires him or her to register  
               as a sex offender to use any Internet social networking Web  








                                                                     SB 448


                                                                    Page  15





               site, as defined, during that period of probation or parole  
               if the victim of the offense was under 18 years of age at  
               the time of the offense and the Internet was used in the  
               commission of the crime.  AB 543 failed passage in the  
               Committee on Appropriations. 

             c)   AB 653 (Galgiani), of the 2011-12 Legislation Session,  
               would have required a person required to register as a sex  
               offender report his or her Internet accounts and Internet  
               identifiers, defined to include e-mail addresses and  
               designations used for the purposes of chatting, instant  
               messaging, social networking, or other similar Internet  
               communication, to local law enforcement.  AB 653 died in  
               this Committee.

             d)   AB 179 (Portantino), of the 2009-10 Legislative Session,  
               would have mandated a person required to register as a sex  
               offender, or a person who is released as a sexually violent  
               predator, as specified, to report all e-mail addresses and  
               IM identities at the time of registration.  AB 179 was  
               considerably narrowed to address costs and was ultimately  
               gutted and amended into a bill related to corporate  
               taxation laws. 

             e)   AB 1850 (Galgiani), of the 2009-10 Legislative Session,  
               provided that any person sentenced to probation or released  
               on parole for an offense that requires him or she to  
               register as a sex offender, as specified, from using the  
               Internet under certain circumstances.  AB 1850 was held on  
               the Assembly Appropriations Committee's Suspense File. 

             f)   AB 2208 (Torres), of the 2009-10 Legislative Session,  
               provided that, commencing January 1, 2011, in any case in  
               which a defendant is granted probation or parole for an  
               offense that requires him or her to register as a sex  
               offender, as specified, and either the victim of the  
               offense was under 18 years of age at the time of the  
               offense, or the Internet was used in the commission of the  
               crime, the defendant shall be prohibited from accessing an  








                                                                     SB 448


                                                                    Page  16





               Internet social networking Web site during the period of  
               time he or she is on probation or parole.  AB 2208 was held  
               on the Assembly Appropriations Committee's Suspense file. 

             g)   SB 1204 (Runner), of the 2009-10 Legislative Session,  
               requires every registered sex offender to inform the law  
               enforcement agency with which he or she last registered of  
               all of his or her online addresses, e-mail addresses, and  
               IM user names by December 31, 2011 and thereafter at the  
               time of original registration and within 30 days of  
               establishing a new online account.  This information, may,  
               upon request, be shared with the DOJ or other law  
               enforcement agencies.  SB 1204 was held on the Assembly  
               Appropriations Committee's Suspense File. 

             h)   AB 841 (Portantino), of the 2007-08 Legislative Session,  
               would have provided that any time a person required to  
               register or re-register as a sex offender, as specified, he  
               or she shall provide all e-mail addresses and IM addresses  
               that he or she may use or is using.  AB 841 was  
               significantly narrowed in Assembly Appropriations Committee  
               and ultimately gutted and amended in the Senate into a bill  
               related to health care. 

          REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

          Support
          
          Safer California Foundation (Co-Sponsor)
          San Diego Police Officers Association Inc. (Co-Sponsor)
          Association of Deputy District Attorneys
          Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
          California Against Slavery
          California Association of Code Enforcement Officers
          California College and University Police Chiefs Association
          California Narcotic Officers Association
          Crime Victims United of California
          Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office
          Los Angeles County Probation Officers' Union AFCSME, Local 685








                                                                     SB 448


                                                                    Page  17





          Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
          Los Angeles Police Protective League
          Peace Officers Research Association of California
          Sacramento County District Attorney's Office
          Riverside Sheriffs' Association

          Opposition
          
          California Reform Sex Offender Laws
          Legal Services for Prisoners with Children

          15 private individuals

          Analysis Prepared by:Stella Choe / PUB. S. / (916)  
          319-3744