Megan’s Law
Megan’s Law provides the public with information on registered sex offenders. It is named after a seven year-old girl from New Jersey who was raped and killed by a registered sex offender who lived across the street from her. California’s Megan’s Law was enacted in in 1996 under Penal Code 290.46. It is used so that families with children can learn where sex offenders live and take any necessary precautions.
Here are a few important facts about Megan’s Law in California:
- It allows the state to post a photo and address on the Department of Justice website.
- For certain less serious offenses, it is possible to have private information and the photo removed from the website.
- Registered sex offenders may not access the website’s search function. If they do so, according to PC 290.46, they may receive a fine up to $1,000, six months in jail, or both.
About Pat Ford
Pat Ford is a criminal defense lawyer in San Diego who works on appeals in some of the most difficult cases around the state. He has a great record for success and integrity. Pat has also published a criminal case law digest since 1984 that's used by judges and lawyers around the state. He also speaks and writes articles for criminal lawyers as well as consumers interested in the law. The consumer-related articles are intended to be informative but do not constitute legal advice.
Case of the Day
The case of the day summarizes a current case and is viewed by lawyers and judges around the state every day.
Geofence search warrants were impermissibly overbroad and violated the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment but the good faith exception applied and suppression was not required.Defendants were identified as murder suspects after a geofence search warrant directed to Google revealed cell phones signed in to Google accounts connected to them were in several of the same locations as the victim on the day of the murder. The geofence warrants complied with the California Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 2016 (Cal ECPA) but they violated the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment and were impermissibly overbroad as the warrants placed no meaningful restrictions on the police search. However, suppression of the evidence was not required where the officers reasonably relied on the new geofence warrant in good faith.id: 27850