« Judge Bright (in dissent) assails fraud guidelines and rote recitation of 3553(a) factors | Main | Early reactions to end of state pot prohibition in Colorado and Washington »

November 7, 2012

California voters approve new sex offender law, parts of which get swiftly blocked by federal judge

I have not closely followed the particulars of Proposition 35 in California, a human trafficking ballot initiative which generated limited debate or controversy before election day.  But, as reported in this new piece from Wired, the initiative received overwhleming support yesterday and today was partially block by a federal judge.  Here are the details:

Immediately following the passage of a California proposition that would dramatically curtail the online, First Amendment rights of registered sex offenders, two civil rights groups filed a lawsuit to block parts of the overwhelmingly approved measure.

Proposition 35, which passed with 81 percent of the vote Tuesday, would require that anyone who is a registered sex offender — including people with misdemeanor offenses such as indecent exposure and whose offenses were not related to activity on the internet — would have to turn over to law enforcement a list of all identifiers they use online as well as a list of service providers they use.

The Californians Against Sexual Exploitation Act would force sex offenders to fork over to law enforcement their e-mail addresses, user and screen names, or any other identifier they used for instant messaging, for social networking sites or at online forums and in internet chat rooms.

The American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which filed their suit (.pdf) on behalf of two registered sex offenders, say that although the measure is vaguely worded, in practice it likely means that registered sex offenders would have to provide user and screen names that they use for participation in online political discussion groups, forums about medical conditions, and even the comment sections of online newspapers and blogs....

The lawsuit, filed in San Francisco federal court, is demanding that a judge immediately block the measure’s internet-reporting provisions.... Michael Risher, an ACLU attorney, said Californians should be concerned that even though the bill only affects registered sex offenders now, the law creates a slippery slope for the same requirements to be applied to others.

He points, for example, to a California DNA-collection law that has expanded dramatically beyond the people it first targeted. Initially, the law required only those convicted of sex offenses and serious felonies to provide authorities with a DNA sample to be included in a state and federal database. But in 2004, this expanded to anyone convicted of a felony, and in 2009, to anyone simply arrested for a felony....

The measure would currently affect some 73,000 sex offenders registered in California, but the law also requires those convicted of human trafficking to register as sex offenders, thus widening the pool of people affected.

UPDATE: Citing First Amendment concerns, U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson in San Francisco agreed with the plaintiffs, and late Wednesday tentatively blocked enforcement of the measure (.pdf) pending further litigation.

November 7, 2012 at 11:10 PM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e2017ee4db37d4970d

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference California voters approve new sex offender law, parts of which get swiftly blocked by federal judge:

Comments

The whole thing is an illegal crock of treason.

read this new part of the law!


http://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2012/general/pdf/text-proposed-laws-v2.pdf#nameddest=prop35

"SEC. 9. Section 290 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
(c) The following persons shall be required to register:
Any person who, since July 1, 1944, has been or is hereafter convicted in any court in this state or in any federal or military court of a violation of Section 187 committed in the perpetration, or an attempt to perpetrate, rape or any act punishable under Section 286, 288, 288a, or 289, Section 207 or 209 committed with intent to violate Section 261, 286, 288, 288a, or 289, Section 220, except assault to commit mayhem, subdivision (b) and (c) of Section 236.1, Section 243.4, paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (6) of subdivision (a) of Section 261, paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 262 involving the use of force or violence for which the person is sentenced to the state prison, Section 264.1, 266, or 266c, subdivision (b) of Section 266h, subdivision (b) of Section 266i, Section 266j, 267, 269, 285, 286, 288, 288a, 288.3, 288.4, 288.5, 288.7, 289, or 311.1, subdivision (b), (c), or (d) of Section 311.2, Section 311.3, 311.4, 311.10, 311.11, or 647.6, former Section 647a, subdivision (c) of Section 653f, subdivision 1 or 2 of Section 314, any offense involving lewd or lascivious conduct under Section 272, or any felony violation of Section 288.2; any statutory predecessor that includes all elements of one of the above-mentioned offenses; or any person who since that date has been or is hereafter convicted of the attempt or conspiracy to commit any of the above-mentioned offenses.

Posted by: rodsmith | Nov 8, 2012 1:20:13 AM

then you have this part. they will be adding god only knows how many people from 1944 forward to the registry.

"CA codes that will get wrapped up into registration retroactive to 1944 are:

OK - some background... the code that the new law will now require retroactive registration is 236.1(a)(b), the already active human trafficking law, which reads:

Any person who deprives or violates the personal liberty of another with the intent to effect or maintain a felony violation of Section 266, 266h, 266i, 267, 311.4, or 518, or to obtain forced labor or services, is guilty of human trafficking.

So, now in addition to a 236.1 conviction all the above listed crimes put you as a 236.1 convictee, which now requires you to be a 290 registrant if you were convicted 1944 or after.

Lets look at each one individually:

266
http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/266.html
Every person who inveigles or entices any unmarried female, of previous chaste character, under the age of 18 years, into any house
of ill fame, or of assignation, or elsewhere, for the purpose of prostitution, or to have illicit carnal connection with any man; and
every person who aids or assists in such inveiglement or enticement; and every person who, by any false pretenses, false representation,
or other fraudulent means, procures any female to have illicit carnal connection with any man, is punishable by imprisonment in the state
prison, or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars ($2,000), or by both
such fine and imprisonment.

266h
http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/266h.html
(a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), any person who, knowing another person is a prostitute, lives or derives support or
maintenance in whole or in part from the earnings or proceeds of the person's prostitution, or from money loaned or advanced to or charged
against that person by any keeper or manager or inmate of a house or other place where prostitution is practiced or allowed, or who
solicits or receives compensation for soliciting for the person, is guilty of pimping, a felony, and shall be punishable by imprisonment
in the state prison for three, four, or six years.
(b) Any person who, knowing another person is a prostitute, lives or derives support or maintenance in whole or in part from the
earnings or proceeds of the person's prostitution, or from money loaned or advanced to or charged against that person by any keeper or
manager or inmate of a house or other place where prostitution is practiced or allowed, or who solicits or receives compensation for
soliciting for the person, when the prostitute is a minor, is guilty of pimping a minor, a felony, and shall be punishable as follows:
(1) If the person engaged in prostitution is a minor 16 years of age or older, the offense is punishable by imprisonment in the state
prison for three, four, or six years.
(2) If the person engaged in prostitution is under 16 years of age, the offense is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison
for three, six, or eight years.

266i
http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/266i.html
(a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), any person who does any of the following is guilty of pandering, a felony, and shall
be punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for three, four, or six years:
(1) Procures another person for the purpose of prostitution.
(2) By promises, threats, violence, or by any device or scheme, causes, induces, persuades, or encourages another person to become a
prostitute.
(3) Procures for another person a place as an inmate in a house of prostitution or as an inmate of any place in which prostitution is
encouraged or allowed within this state.
(4) By promises, threats, violence, or by any device or scheme, causes, induces, persuades, or encourages an inmate of a house of
prostitution, or any other place in which prostitution is encouraged or allowed, to remain therein as an inmate.
(5) By fraud or artifice, or by duress of person or goods, or by abuse of any position of confidence or authority, procures another
person for the purpose of prostitution, or to enter any place in which prostitution is encouraged or allowed within this state, or to
come into this state or leave this state for the purpose of prostitution.
(6) Receives or gives, or agrees to receive or give, any money or thing of value for procuring, or attempting to procure, another
person for the purpose of prostitution, or to come into this state or leave this state for the purpose of prostitution.
(b) Any person who does any of the acts described in subdivision
(a) with another person who is a minor is guilty of pandering, a felony, and shall be punishable as follows:
(1) If the other person is a minor 16 years of age or older, the offense is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for three,
four, or six years.
(2) If the other person is under 16 years of age, the offense is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for three, six, or
eight years.

267
http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/267.html
Every person who takes away any other person under the age of 18 years from the father, mother, guardian, or other person having
the legal charge of the other person, without their consent, for the purpose of prostitution, is punishable by imprisonment in the state
prison, and a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars ($2,000).

311.4
http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/311.4.html
(a) Every person who, with knowledge that a person is a minor, or who, while in possession of any facts on the basis of which
he or she should reasonably know that the person is a minor, hires, employs, or uses the minor to do or assist in doing any of the acts
described in Section 311.2, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for up to one year, or by a fine not exceeding two
thousand dollars ($2,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment, or by imprisonment in the state prison. If the person has previously
been convicted of any violation of this section, the court may, in addition to the punishment authorized in Section 311.9, impose a fine
not exceeding fifty thousand dollars ($50,000).
(b) Every person who, with knowledge that a person is a minor under the age of 18 years, or who, while in possession of any facts
on the basis of which he or she should reasonably know that the person is a minor under the age of 18 years, knowingly promotes,
employs, uses, persuades, induces, or coerces a minor under the age of 18 years, or any parent or guardian of a minor under the age of 18
years under his or her control who knowingly permits the minor, to engage in or assist others to engage in either posing or modeling
alone or with others for purposes of preparing any representation of information, data, or image, including, but not limited to, any film,
filmstrip, photograph, negative, slide, photocopy, videotape, video laser disc, computer hardware, computer software, computer floppy
disc, data storage media, CD-ROM, or computer-generated equipment or any other computer-generated image that contains or incorporates in
any manner, any film, filmstrip, or a live performance involving, sexual conduct by a minor under the age of 18 years alone or with
other persons or animals, for commercial purposes, is guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for
three, six, or eight years.
(c) Every person who, with knowledge that a person is a minor under the age of 18 years, or who, while in possession of any facts
on the basis of which he or she should reasonably know that the person is a minor under the age of 18 years, knowingly promotes,
employs, uses, persuades, induces, or coerces a minor under the age of 18 years, or any parent or guardian of a minor under the age of 18
years under his or her control who knowingly permits the minor, to engage in or assist others to engage in either posing or modeling
alone or with others for purposes of preparing any representation of information, data, or image, including, but not limited to, any film,
filmstrip, photograph, negative, slide, photocopy, videotape, video laser disc, computer hardware, computer software, computer floppy
disc, data storage media, CD-ROM, or computer-generated equipment or any other computer-generated image that contains or incorporates in
any manner, any film, filmstrip, or a live performance involving, sexual conduct by a minor under the age of 18 years alone or with
other persons or animals, is guilty of a felony. It is not necessary to prove commercial purposes in order to establish a violation of
this subdivision.
(d) (1) As used in subdivisions (b) and (c), "sexual conduct" means any of the following, whether actual or simulated: sexual
intercourse, oral copulation, anal intercourse, anal oral copulation, masturbation, bestiality, sexual sadism, sexual masochism,
penetration of the vagina or rectum by any object in a lewd or lascivious manner, exhibition of the genitals or pubic or rectal area
for the purpose of sexual stimulation of the viewer, any lewd or lascivious sexual act as defined in Section 288, or excretory
functions performed in a lewd or lascivious manner, whether or not any of the above conduct is performed alone or between members of the
same or opposite sex or between humans and animals. An act is simulated when it gives the appearance of being sexual conduct.
(2) As used in subdivisions (b) and (c), "matter" means any film, filmstrip, photograph, negative, slide, photocopy, videotape, video
laser disc, computer hardware, computer software, computer floppy disc, or any other computer-related equipment or computer-generated
image that contains or incorporates in any manner, any film, filmstrip, photograph, negative, slide, photocopy, videotape, or video laser disc.
(e) This section does not apply to a legally emancipated minor or to lawful conduct between spouses if one or both are under the age of
18.
(f) In every prosecution under this section involving a minor under the age of 14 years at the time of the offense, the age of the
victim shall be pled and proven for the purpose of the enhanced penalty provided in Section 647.6. Failure to plead and prove that
the victim was under the age of 14 years at the time of the offense is not a bar to prosecution under this section if it is proven that
the victim was under the age of 18 years at the time of the offense.

518
http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/518.html
Extortion is the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, or the obtaining of an official act of a public officer, induced by a wrongful use of force or fear, or under color of official right.

Posted by: rodsmith | Nov 8, 2012 1:22:56 AM

The sfgate.com comment debate is interesting: Suit seeks to block sex trafficking law

Posted by: George | Nov 8, 2012 5:02:37 PM

Are Californians born stupid, or do they have to work at it?

Oh Yeah, I also hear that they raised taxes on the "rich" to support their stupidity.

Posted by: albeed | Nov 8, 2012 5:45:31 PM

Is there anyone with a brain who thinks binding ballot initiatives is a good idea? I would be willing to bet than 99.999% of the people who voted for this have little clue what it is about. Further, anyone who supports the "sex offender" registration requirements is a scumbag who is not an American.

What we have with these binding initiatives is a mechanism where the ~70% of the people living in this country who are disgusting pukes and un-Americans can create laws directing their hatred and harassment at people they need to hate and have been told to hate. People who are listed on the Registries are at war with those people and need to defeat them.

I personally don't think having to give e-mail addresses, IDs, etc. to these criminal governments is really too much of a big deal in a practical sense. If a person doesn't want to be tracked by these criminals then none of that will help them anyway. In that sense, it is just like the Registries and the rest of the witch hunt - it only really affects people who are doing nothing but living normal lives. It is worse than worthless at stopping everything else.

So, practically, it's not a huge deal. But, it is outrageously offensive to anyone with a brain or anyone who is an American. And that is what makes the people who support it such a heinous group of stupid scumbags.

Over the past few months I have found myself believing more and more like rodsmith does. I would be very happy if the people who drive this witch hunt were murdered. I would love to see the people who are on these Registries escalate this war. It would be very enjoyable if one of these criminal governments was having a meeting to pass some new, idiotic harassment law and a Registered person went in there with a weapon and murdered all of them. I would be happy if that were happening all over the country.

I was done with this Registration business about a decade ago. I'm not putting up with it. I've made the Registries useless and I am going to do everything that I legally can to harm the people who support them. I am going to lower the quality of their lives.

Where are the rest of the Registries? Do we need a ballot initiative for them?

Posted by: FRegistryTerrorists | Nov 8, 2012 9:13:45 PM

@ Albeed

We work hard at it. Really hard! Los Angeles passed a law requiring condom use in adult films. I think that should cover it.

Posted by: Stu Pidinca | Nov 8, 2012 10:24:56 PM

I hadn't communicated any of the details, but I had been supplying much of the background on other cases involving EID's. Most states have some sort of EID law, and a few have more outright bans (NC, NY, IL), or heavy modifications (LA), but there has only been two other cases involving RSO EID usage. Doe v. Shurtleff involved a process in which the original state law in Utah required both usernames and passwords. Doe successfully sued to overturn the entire ordinance. The state reacted by creating a new law without the password requirement. Doe sued again but lost.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doe_v._Shurtleff

One other case in GA also got rid of the password law but required EID's as well.

Posted by: Eric Knight | Nov 9, 2012 1:44:30 AM

Eric Knight (Nov 9, 2012 1:44:30 AM):

I can tell you for certain that the Criminal State of Georgia no longer forces people (not on probation or parole) to give them EIDs. Georgia got rid of some of their Nazi legislators (e.g. Criminal Jerry Keen) and I believe many of the legislators who replaced them at the top decided they were tired of looking like idiots.

I could look all of this up but I don't care to take the time to do so. I know there were some court cases and injunctions but I don't know that any of the lawsuits were settled to full resolution. GA actually changed the law during the next legislative session and took out the requirement. I think the litigation still may have been on-going at that time.

GA removed the EID requirement at the same time they made numerous other changes. I personally felt like they were making a ton of changes it an attempt to clean up all the litigation messes that they had created, but I don't know that for sure. They did address many areas where they were being sued. They removed the retroactivity of their residential and employment banishment laws then too (i.e. they kept the law but it does not apply to people convicted prior to its original passage date).

I've actually been amazed at the restraint that Georgia has shown recently. They actually appear to have a bit of sense. California makes Georgia look like geniuses. And it's no coincidence that Georgia is fiscally responsible and California is a thieving cesspool.

It's all a fun game for them and it's certainly giving the "big government" people a lot of jobs and a lot to fret about. Gives their lives some substance, I guess.

Whatever. The weekend is starting right now. I've got to get out, get around children, and get some retaliation going.

Where are the rest of the Registries?

Posted by: FRegistryTerrorists | Nov 9, 2012 9:04:53 AM

Personaly considering any number of United States Supreme Court decisions guarantee american's the right of anon comments. Especialy if your not comitting any crimes. I'd have to tell the calif govt to!

GET FUCKED!

If the individual is comitting a crime there is already a legal counter... Suprise it's called a Search Warrant!

Carry your ass in front of a judge and Prove it and get the damn warrant!

Posted by: rodsmith | Nov 9, 2012 11:34:38 AM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB