BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 702
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 17, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mike Gatto, Chair
AB 702 (Ammiano) - As Amended: March 19, 2013
Policy Committee: Public
SafetyVote: 5-2
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill recasts the lifetime sex offender registration schema
into a three-tiered registration system for sex offenders for
periods of 10 years, 20 years, or life. Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires every registered sex offender (RSO) to register as a
tier one, two or three offender.
a) Tier-one RSOs, subject to registration requirements for
10 years, are defined as follows:
i) Conviction for of a nonviolent registerable offense.
ii) A low to moderate State-Authorized Risk Assessment
Tool for Sex Offenders (SARATSO) or the person is not
eligible for assessment under current law.
iii) No convictions for 10 years of a registerable sex
offense or a violent felony.
iv) No more than one felony conviction of the Act in 10
years.
b) Tier-two RSOs, subject to registration requirements for
20 years, are defined as follows:
i) A moderate to high SARATSO score.
ii) No convictions for 20 years, of a registerable
offense or a violent felony.
AB 702
Page 2
iii) No more than one felony conviction of the Act in 20
years.
iv) A tier-one offender subsequently convicted of more
than one specified felony, or a registerable offense
within 10 years.
c) Tier-three RSOs, subject to registration requirements
for life, are defined as follows:
i) A high risk SARATSO score.
ii) Conviction of a violent registerable offense within
20 years.
iii) Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) or mentally
disordered sex offender status.
iv) A person convicted of human trafficking, as
specified.
v) A tier-two registrant subsequently convicted of more
than one specified felony, or a specified registerable
offense after becoming a tier-two offender after having
previously been a tier-one offender.
2)Provides that tier-two SROs may petition the Department of
Justice (DOJ) for tier-one status if convicted of a
registerable offense against no more than one victim 12 to 17
years of age and the person was not more than 10 years older
than the victim and the act was illegal due solely to the age
of the minor.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)DOJ estimates significant start-up GF costs, in the range of
$6 million over a three-year period, for feasibility studies
and information technology changes to existing data bases, as
well as automated and manual record review.
2)DOJ also estimates significant ongoing GF costs, in the range
AB 702
Page 3
of $1 million for manual record review.
3)Unknown ongoing moderate GF savings to the extent fewer low
level RSOs could be prosecuted for failure to register, which
is a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on the underlying
offense.
4)Ongoing indeterminable local and state law enforcement
efficiencies as a result of shifting the focus of RSO
monitoring to higher risk offenders.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale. The author's objective is to create a risk-based
registration scheme, based on recommendations of the CA Sex
Offender Management Board (CASOMB) and other experts, to help
law enforcement focus on concentrate on higher risk offenders.
The author notes, "California is one of the few states that
requires lifetime registration with no discernment for the
type of offense, and California also does not allow people to
petition for removal from the list even when their offenses
are not sexually violent or predatory, and they have no other
violations. This one-size-fits-all approach puts a strain on
state and local resources, casts all registrants in the same
predatory mold, and perpetuates misinformation."
As noted by CASOMB, though the cost of registering and
monitoring registered sex offenders statewide has not been
quantified, there is a fiscal burden associated with these
functions at both the state and local levels. Focusing on
lifetime registration for offenders who are higher risk, more
violent, or who are repeat offenders creates savings while
permitting more intensive monitoring of those offenders most
likely to re-offend.
2)CASOMB recommendations includes a three-tier sex offender
registration system . In its 2010 Recommendations Report, the
CASOMB noted California is one of the few states with lifetime
registration for all sex offenders. "On the positive side,
this allows the public to be aware of the majority of sex
AB 702
Page 4
offenders living in their neighborhoods. On the negative side,
the public and local law enforcement agencies have no way of
differentiating between higher and lower risk sex offenders.
In this one-size-fits-all system of registration, law
enforcement cannot concentrate its scarce resources on close
supervision of the more dangerous offenders or on those who
are at higher risk of committing another sex crime.
"The CASOMB recommends a three-tier system of registration,
which will assign a tier level to each sex offender depending,
in part, on individual risk assessment, history of violent
convictions, and sexual offense recidivism."
3)Other States . According to a 2010 CASOMB review:
a) Half of the states require 10 years for the majority of
registrants, and life for the rest, using risk assessment
or offense-based classifications to determine who registers
for life.
b) Some states allow registrants to petition the courts for
termination of registration, often after 10 years of
registration.
c) Five states require registration for 15 years, 25 years,
or life, depending on the offense.
d) Other states use a combination of 15/life; 20/life;
25/life; 5/10/20/life, 10/25/life; 10/15/25/life; or
10/15/20/life, depending on risk or offense
classifications.
e) Four states (California, Alabama, Florida, and South
Carolina) require lifetime registration for all
registrants, and one state requires 15 years for all
registrants.
California has the most registered sex offenders in the
country, about 90,000, about 75% of whom are in the community.
The rest are incarcerated. This large number is due to the
population of the state, the length of time California has
registered sex offenders (retroactive to 1944), lifetime
registration, and a large number of offenses requiring
registration.
4)Support . According to the California Coalition on Sexual
Offending, "Universal lifetime registration for sex offenders
serves little purpose with respect to increasing community
safety. On the contrary, it dilutes resources and makes it
AB 702
Page 5
appear that there are huge numbers of highly dangerous
offenders living in the state. While a certain number of sex
offenders may well pose a continuing danger and should
continue to be required to register for life, many of those
currently listed pose no greater thread of sexually offending
than does the average adult male. The research supports a
differentiated approach using the best available science to
assess actual risk - an approach such as that introduced by AB
702."
5)Research supports tiered registration based on risk of
re-offending. In addition to the CASOMB reviews and
recommendations, a considerable body of research indicates the
risk of a registered sex offender re-offending after staying
offense free in the community for years is eventually no
higher risk than for a non-sex offender.
According to the State Authorized Risk Assessment Tool for Sex
Offenders (SARATSO) Review Committee, established by the
state to consider the selection of the risk assessment tools
for sex offenders in California, "Research shows the most
accurate way of predicting whether a sex offender will
reoffend is by utilizing a validated risk assessment
instrument. These instruments are based on research studies
which followed released sex offenders and identified factors
associated with those who re-offended. The Static-99R is the
most widely used such instrument. Many research studies have
proven its predictive accuracy. The sexual re-offense rate for
the typical sex offender is between 4% and 12% after 5 years
from release from custody, and between 6-22% after 10 years.
(Hanson, et al., Absolute Recidivism Rates Predicted by
Static-99R and Static-2002R Sex Offender Risk Assessment Tools
Vary Across Samples: A Meta-Analysis, Criminal Justice and
Behavior (2012) 39: 1148.)"
6)No opposition to this measure has been received by the
committee .
7)Prior legislation , AB 625 (Ammiano), 2011, was virtually
identical to this bill and failed passage on the Assembly
floor.
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081
AB 702
Page 6