California's new tiered system for sex offender registration

As of January 1, 2021, sex offender registration will be based on a tier system. People who commit certain crimes listed under any of these tiers must register as a sex offender for a designated amount of time. The system will be made up of three tiers. Tier one is for the less serious offenses, while tiers two and three are for the more serious cases. Tier one crimes carry a punishment of registration for ten years as a sex offender. Tier two crimes result in twenty years on the sex offender registration, and tier three crimes result in permanent registration.

Under the new system Tier 1 offenses include:

  • Child pornography (PC 311.1/311.11)
  • Indecent exposure (PC 314)
  • Sodomy-misdemeanor (PC 286)
  • Sexual battery - misdemeanor (PC 243.4)
  • Arranging a meeting with a minor for lewd purposes (PC 288)

Tier 2 offenses include:

  • Lewd acts with a minor under 14 (PC 288)
  • Incest (PC 285)
  • Sodomy with a mentally or physically disabled victim (PC 286)
  • Penetration with a foreign object of a mentally or physically disabled victim (PC 289)
  • Rape with a mentally or physically disabled victim (PC 261)

Tier 3 offenses included:

  • Rape (PC 261)
  • Forced spousal rape (PC 262)
  • Sodomy by force (PC 286)
  • Continuous sexual assault of a child (PC 288.5)
  • Sex acts against a child ten years or younger (PC 288.7)

This is not a complete list of the offenses, but a few of the more common ones. A complete list can be found here.

Changes to Sex Offender Registration

Prior to 2017, California required sex offenders to register for life, regardless of the offense. Governor Brown signed a bill (SB 384) into law that modified this into a new three-tiered system. The new system, does not take effect on January 1, 2021. The tiers get progressively harsher in punishment. The law was passed because there were too many sex offenders, and it was difficult to decipher who the more dangerous offenders were. Going forward, the government will be able to devote more resources to monitor the most dangerous sex offenders.

Reasons for this change:

California's sex offender registry list is massive, 1 in 400 people are on it. The size of the list makes it almost useless to law enforcement officials who can barely monitor the actions so many people.

California is one of only four states that still requires all sex offenders to register for life. This means that people who had sex in public are on the same list as people who violently pray on children. The new system would make a clear distinction.

The registry also punishes LGBT people who engaged in same sex conduct decades ago when it was illegal. The new law will remove these people from the sex offender list.

Nancy E. O'Malley, the District Attorney of Alameda County, described the current system as "an antiquated, ineffective 70 year old system.” The new system under SB 384 will make monitoring dangerous sex offenders easier and keep people safer. In addition, it will take people off the list who have been on for decades for minor offenses.

All information pertaining to which tier crimes are on comes from SB 384

Watch my friend, David Shapiro, explain:

Related case summaries

People v. Toloy
The requirement that a defendant be notified of his duty to reregister as a sex offender each time he is released from jail is directory not mandatory and does not provide a defense to the charge of failing to reregister.Defendant was released from jail in April 2014 after serving a two month term. Although he had previously been informed of his obligation to reregister as a sex offender he was not again informed of that duty upon his April 2014 release. He was later convicted of failing to reregister and was committed to state prison. Penal Code section 290.017 requires that a defendant be notified of his duty to register every time he is released from jail. However the requirement is directory rather than mandatory and therefore did not provide a defense to the charge.id: 24252
239 Cal.App.4th 1116 (3rd Dist. 2015)

Related categories:

Sex Offender Registration (171)
People v. Eastman
The trial court did not have the option of ordering sex offender registration for a limited time as a probation condition as an option to lifetime registration.Defendant took “up skirt” videos of women in public places and had a camera installed in womens’ bathrooms. He pled guilty to certain misdemeanor offenses and admitted under Penal Code section 290.006 that the offenses had been committed as a result of sexual compulsion or for sexual gratification. He argued the trial court had the authority to impose sex offender registration as a probation condition for a limited period of time. However, the court was required to order lifetime registration.id: 25842
26 Cal.App.5th 638 (6th Dist. 2018)

Related categories:

Sex Offender Registration (171)

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.

People v. Meza
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
Case number B318310 (4/3/2023)

Related categories:

Exclusionary Rule, generally (good faith exception) (310)
Overbreadth/Staleness (368)