BILL ANALYSIS
SB 1204
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 22, 2010
Counsel: Kimberly A. Horiuchi
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Tom Ammiano, Chair
SB 1204 (Runner) - As Amended: May 6, 2010
SUMMARY : 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, electronic mail (e-mail)
addresses, and instant messaging (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 Department of
Justice (DOJ) or other law enforcement agencies. Specifically,
this bill :
1)Creates a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in the
county jail and/or a fine of not more than $1,000 for any
registered sex offender to fail to register his or her on-line
or e-mail address or instant messaging user name within the
specified timeframe.
2)Includes in the statement of notice registered sex offenders
must sign an acknowledgment that the person is required to
notify law enforcement, as specified, of all of his or her
online or e-mail addresses and instant messaging user names,
as specified.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires persons convicted of specified sex offenses to
register, or reregister if the person has been previously
registered, upon release from incarceration, placement,
commitment, or release on probation. States that the
registration shall consist of all of the following [Penal Code
Section 290.015(a)]:
a) A statement signed in writing by the person, giving
information as shall be required by DOJ and giving the name
and address of the person's employer, and the address of
the person's place of employment, if different from the
SB 1204
Page 2
employer's main address;
b) Fingerprints and a current photograph 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
registrant;
d) Notice to the person that he or she may have a duty to
register in any other state where he or she may relocate;
and,
e) Copies of adequate proof of residence, such as a
California driver's license or identification card, recent
rent or utility receipt or any other information that the
registering official believes is reliable.
1)States every person who is required to register, as specified,
who is living as a transient shall be required to register for
the rest of his or her life as follows:
a) He or she shall register, or reregister if the person
has previously registered, within five working days from
release from incarceration, placement or commitment, or
release on probation, pursuant to Penal Code Section
290(b), except that if the person previously registered as
a transient less than 30 days from the date of his or her
release from incarceration, he or she does not need to
reregister as a transient until his or her next required
30-day update of registration. If a transient is not
physically present in any one jurisdiction for five
consecutive working days, he or she shall register in the
jurisdiction in which he or she is physically present on
the fifth working day following release, as specified.
Beginning on or before the 30th day following initial
registration upon release, a transient shall reregister no
less than once every 30 days thereafter. A transient shall
register with the chief of police of the city in which he
or she is physically present within that 30-day period, or
the sheriff of the county if he or she is physically
present in an unincorporated area or city that has no
police department, and additionally, with the chief of
police of a campus of the University of California, the
California State University, or community college if he or
SB 1204
Page 3
she is physically present upon the campus or in any of its
facilities. A transient shall reregister no less than once
every 30 days regardless of the length of time he or she
has been physically present in the particular jurisdiction
in which he or she reregisters. If a transient fails to
reregister within any 30-day period, he or she may be
prosecuted in any jurisdiction in which he or she is
physically present.
b) A transient who moves to a residence shall have five
working days within which to register at that address, in
accordance with Penal Code Section 290(b). A person
registered at a residence address in accordance with that
provision who becomes transient shall have five working
days within which to reregister as a transient in
accordance with existing law.
c) Beginning on his or her first birthday following
registration, a transient shall register annually, within
five working days of his or her birthday, to update his or
her registration with the entities described in existing
law. A transient shall register in whichever jurisdiction
he or she is physically present on that date. At the 30-day
updates and the annual update, a transient shall provide
current information as required on the DOJ annual update
form, including the information.
d) A transient shall, upon registration and
re-registration, provide current information as required on
the DOJ registration forms, and shall also list the places
where he or she sleeps, eats, works, frequents, and engages
in leisure activities. If a transient changes or adds to
the places listed on the form during the 30-day period, he
or she does not need to report the new place or places
until the next required re-registration. [Penal Code
Section 290.011(a) to (d).]
2)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 of the offense requiring registration was
a felony or if the person has a prior conviction of failing to
register. [Penal Code Section 290.018(a)(b).]
3)Provides that within three days thereafter, the registering
SB 1204
Page 4
law enforcement agency or agencies shall forward the
statement, fingerprints, photograph, and vehicle license plate
number, if any, to the DOJ. [Penal Code Section 290.015(b).]
4)States that a misdemeanor failure to register shall be
punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one
year, and a felony failure to register shall be punishable in
the state prison for 16 months, 2 or 3 years. [Penal Code
Section 290.018(a)(b).]
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "While social
networking sites are a great way for people to connect, they
can also create a virtual shopping mall for sex offenders on
the prowl. SB 1204 will require sex offenders like John
Gardner to register all their online addresses with law
enforcement.
"Online address registration will create a tool which can be
employed to provide information to social networking sites
which may choose to purge potential predators. With passage
of this bill, California would be the second state to enact
such a law. New York became the first when it passed a similar
bill in 2008, known as the Electronic Securing and Targeting
of Online Predators Act (e-STOP), which was sponsored by New
York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo.
"Under e-STOP, convicted sex offenders must register all of
their e-mail addresses, screen names, and other Internet
identifiers with law enforcement. On February 2, 2010, Cuomo
declared that more than 4,336 registered New York sex
offenders had been purged from major social network websites
since the bill passed, including a man convicted of assaulting
a 14-year-old boy and another man who raped a 2-year-old girl.
"SB 1204, California's version of e-STOP, will allow law
enforcement to better protect children from sexual predators
who establish online addresses in order to develop
'cyber-relationships' with young people. As John Walsh,
co-founder of the National Center for Missing and Exploited
Children and host of "America's Most Wanted, stated in a press
SB 1204
Page 5
release issued at the time of the New York law's passage,
"Social networking websites have become the private hunting
grounds for sexual predators and they use the safety and
anonymity of the internet to groom their next victims."
2)First Amendment and a Chilling Effect on Free Speech : 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
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, 501 U.S. 1030, 1048-1051 (1991). 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
SB 1204
Page 6
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
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 page 885.)
The United States Supreme Court reaffirmed the principles
recited by Reno v. ACLU, supra, in Ashcroft v. ACLU, 542 U.S.
656 (2004), 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
SB 1204
Page 7
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, 535 U.S. 234 (2002),
the Supreme Court further stated that "the mere tendency of
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, 394
U.S. 557, 566 (1969.) 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.) Is it possible that requiring an offender to
register his or her e-mail or IM identity will create a
chilling effect on his or her on-line communication?
3)Sex Offense 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. [Penal Code
Section 290(c) (includes all offenses where registration is
required if committed on or after July 1, 1944).] The purpose
of sex offender registration is to provide law enforcement
with a list of offenders who may be likely suspects in the
event of another sex offense.
"The purpose of [Penal Code Section 290] is to assure that
SB 1204
Page 8
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.] Unlike other states, California requires
lifetime registration for all listed sex offenses. [Penal
Code Section 290(b).]
The registration statute does not distinguish crimes based on
severity and instead requires all persons convicted of a
listed crime must register annually within five days of his or
her birthday and for the rest of his or her life. [Penal Code
Section 290.012(a).] Although most registerable offenses are
felonies, there some alternate felony/misdemeanor penalties
and a few straight misdemeanors. [See Penal Code Section
243.4 (sexual battery); Penal Code Section 266c (obtaining
sexual consent by fraud); Penal Code Section 311.1, 311.2(c),
311.4, 311.11 (child pornography); Penal Code Section 647.6
(annoying or molesting a child); and, Penal Code Section
314(1)(2) (indecent exposure).]
4)Other States : Several other states and the Federal Government
have enacted legislation aimed at regulating sex offender use
of the Internet or social networking sites. New York, in
particular, enacted requirements that a registered sex
offender provide the names of any Internet accounts or screen
names used by the offender. [NYC CLS Correc. Section
168-a(1)(b).] New York also required the relevant state
agency to provide any authorized Internet entity with a list
of Internet identifiers for all registered sex offenders.
Internet entities may prescreen a new member or remove any
existing members who are registered as sex offenders. [NYC
CLS Correc. Section 168-b(A).] New York also creates a
mandatory condition of probation for a sex offender who
commits an offense against a person under the age of 18 and
designated a "level three" sex offender (meaning a high risk
of re-offense). [NYC CLS Correc. Section 65.10(4a); See also
NYC CLS Correc. 168-l(c).]
Florida, Nevada and New Jersey restricted Internet access only
for persons on probation or parole. Nevada states that "if a
defendant is convicted of a sexual offense and the court
SB 1204
Page 9
grants probation or suspends the sentence, the court shall . .
. order as a condition of probation or suspension of sentence
that the defendant . . . not possess any electronic device
capable of accessing the Internet and not access the Internet
through any such device or any other means, unless possession
of such device or access is approved by the parole and
probation officer assigned to the defendant". [Nev. Rev.
Stat. Ann. Section 176A.410(1)(g); See also Brant, Comment:
Sentencing "Cyber Sex Offenders": Individual Offenders
Require Individualized Conditions When Courts Restrict Their
Computer Use and Internet Access (hereinafter Brant), 58 Cath.
U.L. Rev. 779, 796.]
Florida law provides that a court must impose a prohibition on
accessing the Internet or other computer services until the
offender's sex offender treatment program, after a risk
assessment is completed, approves and implements a safety plan
for the offender's accessing or using the Internet or other
computer services. [FLA. Stat. Ann. Section 948.30(1)(h).]
New Jersey's sex offender registration law states, "A person
required to register under this act shall provide the
appropriate law enforcement agency with information as to
whether the person has routine access to or use of a computer
or any other device with Internet capability. A person who
fails to notify the appropriate law enforcement agency of such
information or of a change in the person's access to or use of
a computer or other device with Internet capability or who
provides false information concerning the person's access to
or use of a computer or any other device with Internet
capability is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree." [NJ
Stat. Ann. Section 2C: 7-2(d)(2); Brant at 796.]
Federal law requires all sex offenders to provide Internet
identifiers, such as e-mail addresses and designations to the
National Sex Offender Registry. (42 U.S.C. 16915a.) "While
the federal laws that require information sharing and
reporting by Web site operators do not affect offenders as
severely as those state laws that entirely prohibit computer
or Internet access, all of these laws undoubtedly demonstrate
an ever-increasing trend by federal and state legislatures in
tightening the rope on convicted sex offenders." (Brant at
796.)
"However, if the new laws interfere with a judge's discretion to
SB 1204
Page 10
evaluate release conditions, the question becomes whether a
legislature should set mandatory conditions for offenders, or
whether courts should be free to make case-by-case
determinations based upon the totality of the circumstances."
(Brant at 798.)
This statute appears to be, at least in part, modeled on the New
York statute passed last year. The New York (NY) can Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU) published a legislative memorandum
strongly questioning by constitutional validity and the policy
of the New York statute. The NY ACLU stated:
"The sponsor's memorandum accompanying the e-STOP legislation
speaks of a grave security risk posed by predators who utilize
the internet to perpetrate sex crimes. This assertion is
dubious; recent analyses indicate the alleged problem is
greatly exaggerated. Those concerned the internet is
facilitating the commission of sex crimes often cite a study
by the Crimes Against Children Research Center, which found
that one in seven children had received sexual solicitations
while on-line. According to the author of the report,
however, many of these propositions were 'coming from other
kids, or just people who are acting weird on line.'
"A highly regarded 'Frontline' documentary produced by the
Public Broadcasting System reached a similar conclusion. The
PBS investigation focused on teenagers, 90 percent of whom
used the internet daily - including Facebook, MySpace and
other social networking sites. The producers of the
documentary observed that:
" 'One of the biggest surprises in making this film was the
discovery that the threat of online predators is misunderstood
and overblown. The data shows that giving out personal
information over the Internet makes absolutely no difference
when it comes to a child's vulnerability to predation . . . .
Most importantly, all the kids we met, without exception, told
us the same thing: They would never dream of meeting someone
in person they'd met online.'
"As for children under the age of twelve who are the victims of
child abuse, the perpetrator in more than 90 percent of such
crimes is a family member or a known friend of the family.
Kidnapping or sexual abuse of a child by a stranger is an
extremely rare occurrence. These findings and observations
SB 1204
Page 11
are consistent with the results of on-line sting operations,
including sweeps of networking sites. Aggressive policing of
the internet has uncovered few instances of registered
offenders engaged in criminal conduct.
"Recidivism rates among registered sex offenders offer further
evidence that the risk of harm posed by registered offenders
is greatly overstated. Following release from state prison,
sex offenders are rarely subject to arrest or conviction for
another sex offense. A recent study by New York's Division of
Probation and Correctional Alternatives found that of 19,827
offenders registered as of March 31, 2005, the re-arrest rate
for a new sex crime within one year from the date of first
registration was 2 percent; re-arrest within two years was 3
percent; within five years, 6 percent; and within eight years,
8 percent.
"The proposed regulatory scheme is flawed by vagueness and
overbreadth. When government acts to restrict speech based on
the identity of the speaker or the content of his speech, such
restrictions must be narrowly tailored in furtherance of a
compelling government interest. Courts have recognized that a
greater degree of deference may be granted to restrictions
upon conditions of probation; however these restrictions must
not undermine constitutional rights in ways unrelated to
rehabilitation. There is no question that the state has a
compelling interest in preventing sex crimes against minors.
However, e-STOP is not tailored to restrict only - or even
primarily - speech that may be related to the commission of
such crimes. The bill's stated objective is to prevent former
offenders from communicating with minors through social
networking sites.
"But a tremendous amount of communication takes places between
adults on social networking sites. Many people visit MySpace,
for example, to engage in political speech or advocacy, or to
learn about music performances. However the proposed e-STOP
law would subject to criminal suspicion and prosecution former
offenders engaged in lawful speech that is directed to an
adult audience, without any intent that the speech reach
minors. The law would also make criminal the mere act of
viewing the MySpace web site, even if done with the intent to
learn about social or political events. As a consequence the
proposed regulatory scheme fails to pass constitutional
muster."
SB 1204
Page 12
[.]
Although other states and the Federal Government may have
enacted Internet restrictions on sex offenders, California and
Missouri are the only states that require lifetime
registration for all registerable sex offenders with virtually
no opportunity for removal. [NIC/WCL Project on Addressing
Prison Rape under NIC Cooperative Agreement; American
University, Washington College of Law, August 2009; see
Missouri Law V.A.M.S. 589.400(3) ("Registration is a
lifetime requirement unless the offender has been pardoned or
the conviction has been reversed, set aside or vacated.").]
California provides for removal only where an offender can
show consensual adult activity that resulted in a conviction
for sodomy or oral copulation prior to January 1, 1976 or
where the offender is granted a certificate of rehabilitation
for offenses not explicitly registerable. [Penal Code Section
290.019(a); Penal Code Section 290.5.]
5)Luring Statutes : Existing law punishes contact with a minor
with the intent to commit a specified sex offense. Every
person who contacts or communicates with a minor, or attempts
to contact or communicate with a minor, who knows, or
reasonably should know, that the person is a minor with the
intent to commit a kidnapping, willful injury to a child,
sodomy, lewd and lascivious conduct, use of a minor in harmful
matter, as specified, or certain pornography-related offenses
is punished as if the offender attempted to commit the
specified sexual offense. For instance, if the offender
contacted the minor with the intent to commit lewd and
lascivious conduct, as specified, he or she may be punished by
18 months, 3 or 4 years in prison. [Penal Code Section
288.3(a).]
Additionally, Penal Code Section 288.4(a) states, "Any person
who, motivated by an unnatural or abnormal sexual interest in
children, arranges a meeting with a minor or a person he or
she believes to be a minor for the purpose of exposing his or
her genitals or pubic or rectal area, having the child expose
his or her genitals or pubic or rectal area or engaging in
lewd or lascivious behavior, shall be punished by up to one
year in the county jail or by fine of up to $5,000 or both
imprisonment and fine". If that person arranges to meet a
minor and goes to that meeting place, he or she shall be
SB 1204
Page 13
punished by a term of two, three, or four years in state
prison. [Penal Code Section 288.4(b).] As noted above, these
statutes punish contact with a minor and do not require a
completed act. Hence, any person who attempts to use the
computer to lure a person under the age of 18 into a sex act
is already guilty of a crime.
6)Law Enforcement Resources : Assume that a sex offender
registrant changes e-mail addresses frequently, or uses a
number of different e-mail addresses, each for a different
purpose. All of the e-mail addresses, and all of the changes,
are required to be reported to the registering law enforcement
agency, which is then required to transmit this information to
DOJ. In a state such as California (which has the largest
number of registered sex offenders in the country), the work
involved in merely processing this information would be
considerable.
Do municipalities with large numbers of registered sex offenders
have the personnel and capacity to obtain, process, and
transmit all of this data? Because of life-time registration,
some registrant's may have been crime-free for many years;
moreover, their initial crime requiring registration may have
been nothing related to child sexual abuse. Is receipt and
processing of all of this information regarding computer
identifications a wise use of limited resources? Does this
bill require sex offenders to notify law enforcement that they
are no longer using the previously registered e-mail addresses
and IM identities or in instances in which sex offender
registrants have ceased using Internet resources? Without
such a requirement, law enforcement will be burdened with
countless pieces of outdated and useless information.
7)Recommendations of the Sex Offender Management Board Report :
AB 1015 (Chu), Chapter 338, Statutes of 2005, created the Sex
Offender Management Board (SMOB). According to the author of
AB 1015:
"The SOMB created under this bill will be tasked with an
assessment of California's current management practices for
adult sex offenders residing in California communities and of
best practices around the nation. Based on their findings,
SOMB will make recommendations to improve California's
management of sex offenders, with the goal of improving
community safety."
SB 1204
Page 14
"Sex offenders in California are currently managed through a
complex system involving multiple state and local departments.
Yet, there is no centralized infrastructure that coordinates
communication, research or decision-making amongst the various
agencies.
"In California, there are over 100,000 registered sex offenders
living in the community, an estimated 14,000 to 25,000 in
California prisons and an additional unknown number in
California jails. Almost all convicted sex offenders will
eventually return to the community, with a short period of
time under direct supervision, either on parole, probation or
conditional release. It is integral that during this period
of time when sex offenders are under direct supervision, there
is a comprehensive and cohesive network of interventions
available to control the behavior of sex offenders and prevent
recidivism.
"AB 1015 will bring the major participants in the management of
sex offenders together to assess current practices in managing
adult sex offenders under supervision, identify best practices
and make recommendations on how to implement these changes.
Efforts such as the one proposed in this bill has been met
with much success in other states and within California
counties, including San Diego County, Orange County, Colorado,
Oregon, Connecticut and Pennsylvania."
The SOMB released some recommendations in January 2010. The
report states:
"Sexual crimes rightly outrage communities. The legacy of
sexual assault in the lives of victims is often profound and
long-lasting. In the aftermath of an assault, communities
often demand with great vehemence that policymakers and public
safety professionals DO SOMETHING. The root of the desire to
acknowledge the serious nature of the crime is difficult to
disparage but, when combined with fear, misinformation and the
heat of media inquiry, the flame of community outrage can
create a political environment that rewards swift action over
more methodical, effective approaches. On occasion, these
swift approaches may address short-term community outrage at
the cost of directing resources and skilled personnel away
from investments in strategies for long-term safety.
SB 1204
Page 15
"Every child, woman and man in California deserves to be safe
from sexual violence. Even though a known sex offender living
near a park may seem like the most obvious threat, far more
Californians will be sexually victimized in their own homes by
acquaintances or family members. The lack of significant
in-home intervention and prevention resources is symptomatic
of an approach that fundamentally misunderstands the complete
extent and nature of sexual violence. The CASOMB acknowledges
this broader context of sexual victimization, and recognizes
the limitations of our mandate that is focused on already
identified offenders.
"No two sex offenders pose the same level of risk, nor can they
be managed or supervised in identical ways. Laws and policies
that fail to take into account the real differences in risk
that individual offenders might pose will misallocate valuable
resources and misunderstand potential threats. The ultimate
success of California's sex offender management system will
depend on its ability to understand the myriad of ways that
sexual offending occurs and then adjust to intervene and
manage that risk.
"Similarly, policymakers and the public should be suspicious of
any one technology or strategy which promises to solve the
problem of sex offenders. Sexual offending is a complex
problem that will require thoughtful, multifaceted approach to
effectively address, and ultimately, prevent." (California
Sex Offender Management Board, Decrease Victimization;
Increase Community Safety, Recommendations Report, January
2010, pp. 9-11.)
8)Arguments in Support : According to Facebook , "Facebook goes
to great lengths to keep bad actors-including registered sex
offenders-off of our site. While the current text of SB 1204
would not allow for the sharing of collected online
identifiers with social networking sites like Facebook, we
believe that collecting this information and sharing it with
the California Department of Justice is an important first
step. Facebook terminates all accounts of registered sex
offenders as we are made aware of them. Facebook is more
proactive In this regard than many sites and we invest
significant resources to facilitate this self-policing; other,
smaller companies lack resources to engage in self-policing.
All self-policing, however, is largely dependent on current
and accurate data from state registries. We hope that in the
SB 1204
Page 16
future this information can be shared with all types of
Internet companies and application developers so that we may
all more rapidly purge our sites of offenders registered in
California."
9)Arguments in Opposition : According to the California Public
Defenders Association , "This proposed legislation would amend
Penal Code Section 290.013 and 290.015 to require all sex
offenders to list their online addresses, email addresses and
instant messaging user names as part of their 290
registration. Failure to register email addresses would be a
misdemeanor. This legislation is fiscally imprudent and will
do nothing to make our communities safer. Evidence based
research recognized by the California Sex Offender Management
Board has shown that the reintegration of sex offenders into
the community is crucial to prevent re-offense. That means
that sex offenders need jobs and housing in order to maintain
stability and rebuild their lives. If sex offenders are able
to find gainful employment and appropriate housing, they are
less likely to endanger the community."
10)Related Legislation :
a) AB 179 (Portantino) 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, must
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.
b) AB 1850 (Galgiani) would have required a person required
to register as a sex offender to register his or her
Internet accounts and Internet identifiers, defined to
include e-mail addresses and designations used for the
purposes of chatting, IM, social networking, or other
similar Internet communication. AB 1850 was held on the
Assembly Appropriations Committee's Suspense File.
c) AB 2208 (Torres) would have 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
SB 1204
Page 17
commission of the crime, the defendant shall be prohibited
form accessing an 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.
11)Prior Legislation : 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 and
ultimately gutted and amended in the Senate into a bill
related to health care.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California State Sheriffs' Association
County of San Bernardino
Crime Victims United
Facebook
Junior League of California,
State Public Affairs Committee
Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office
San Bernardino County Sheriff's Office
Opposition
American Civil Liberties Unions
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California Public Defenders Association
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety
Analysis Prepared by : Kimberly Horiuchi / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3744