A Sex Registration Horror Story

[George Costanza]

I will call him "Joe" (not his real name). Joe is 55 years old. When he was in his 30's, Joe was convicted of a sex crime - the type of sex crime that requires him to register with the police department under California's sex registration law (Penal Code, Section 290).

Joe is a transient - a homeless person. He has no address to give the police. In cases such as that, the law requires the person to register every 30 days at the police station nearest to where he most normally is located. Joe faithfully did that.

In November of law year, Joe's driver's license expired. He went to DMV to get a new one. DMV asked him for an address. He said he did not have one. They told him he had to give them one or they would not renew his license. He said, "Well, I do have an address where I get mail." He was told to put that address down, and he did - indicating on the DMV form that it was a "mail only" address.

A month or so ago, a Sheriff's detective whose job it is to monitor sex registrants in the area, ran a routine check on Joe. As part of such a check, the detective contacts DMV to see whether or not any current address have been listed there by the registrant. He found the address which Joe had given DMV as a "mail only" address.

The detective went to the address. He was told by the guy who lived there, that Joe only used the address to receive mail. He also told the detective that sometimes he lets Joe sleep in the garage in return for doing yard work. When asked how often Joe slept in the garage, the homeowner said, "once a week or so."

Armed with this information, the detective sought, and obtained, a felony filing against Joe for violation of PC 290. What might that violation be? The detective located an osbscure California Department of Justice rule which says that if a person stays at one location as little as once a week, they must designate that address as their residence address, and register it at the local police station. Since Joe was registering as a transient, and had not listed the mail only address as his residence, he was in violation of the law according to this detective and the DA that filed the case.

Anyone smell anything here? Joe was doing everything he could to comply with the registration law. He had no knowledge of the "once a week" rule. He thought he was doing everything right. Joe was not trying to hide anything from anybody. Too bad.

Oh, yes - since most sex crimes are strikes in California, Joe is looking at a minimum of 32 months in state prison if he is convicted.

Joe is upset. So am I.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Add me to the list.

 

[Gremlin-USA]

The laws that are designed to protect are sometimes skewed beyond belief.

I no of someone who was a respectable businessman and part time charity volunteer, one time he was on the back nine of the golf course and had to go whizz, afraid he could not make it to the bathroom, he went in the woods, well a lady about 300 yards away saw him stading behind a tree, she could not see a stream or anything, only saw him walk behind a large pine tree in the woods, the man now has to register as a sex offender, she called the police and then he admitted it 1 hour later to them at the clubhouse, that is what he got for his honesty and having a busybody lady who could only guess what he did......


.

 

[George Costanza]

The laws that are designed to protect are sometimes skewed beyond belief.

I know of someone who was a respectable businessman and part time charity volunteer, one time he was on the back nine of the golf course and had to go whizz, afraid he could not make it to the bathroom, he went in the woods, well a lady about 300 yards away saw him stading behind a tree, she could not see a stream or anything, only saw him walk behind a large pine tree in the woods, the man now has to register as a sex offender, she called the police and then he admitted it 1 hour later to them at the clubhouse, that is what he got for his honesty and having a busybody lady who could only guess what he did......


.

Stories like that make me sick.

I will say this, however. The guy should have fought the case. I know - no one wants to go into court and defend that type of a case. However, when one considers what happens if you are convicted (registration), I think the choice should be obvious.

 

[xotoxi]

I will call him "Joe" (not his real name). Joe is 55 years old. When he was in his 30's, Joe was convicted of a sex crime - the type of sex crime that requires him to register with the police department under California's sex registration law (Penal Code, Section 290).

Joe is a transient - a homeless person. He has no address to give the police. In cases such as that, the law requires the person to register every 30 days at the police station nearest to where he most normally is located. Joe faithfully did that.

In November of law year, Joe's driver's license expired. He went to DMV to get a new one. DMV asked him for an address. He said he did not have one. They told him he had to give them one or they would not renew his license. He said, "Well, I do have an address where I get mail." He was told to put that address down, and he did - indicating on the DMV form that it was a "mail only" address.

A month or so ago, a Sheriff's detective whose job it is to monitor sex registrants in the area, ran a routine check on Joe. As part of such a check, the detective contacts DMV to see whether or not any current address have been listed there by the registrant. He found the address which Joe had given DMV as a "mail only" address.

The detective went to the address. He was told by the guy who lived there, that Joe only used the address to receive mail. He also told the detective that sometimes he lets Joe sleep in the garage in return for doing yard work. When asked how often Joe slept in the garage, the homeowner said, "once a week or so."

Armed with this information, the detective sought, and obtained, a felony filing against Joe for violation of PC 290. What might that violation be? The detective located an osbscure California Department of Justice rule which says that if a person stays at one location as little as once a week, they must designate that address as their residence address, and register it at the local police station. Since Joe was registering as a transient, and had not listed the mail only address as his residence, he was in violation of the law according to this detective and the DA that filed the case.

Anyone smell anything here? Joe was doing everything he could to comply with the registration law. He had no knowledge of the "once a week" rule. He thought he was doing everything right. Joe was not trying to hide anything from anybody. Too bad.

Oh, yes - since most sex crimes are strikes in California, Joe is looking at a minimum of 32 months in state prison if he is convicted.

Joe is upset. So am I.

I'm sorry to hear about your predicament, "Joe".

 

[AllieBaba]

I will call him "Joe" (not his real name). Joe is 55 years old. When he was in his 30's, Joe was convicted of a sex crime - the type of sex crime that requires him to register with the police department under California's sex registration law (Penal Code, Section 290).

Joe is a transient - a homeless person. He has no address to give the police. In cases such as that, the law requires the person to register every 30 days at the police station nearest to where he most normally is located. Joe faithfully did that.

In November of law year, Joe's driver's license expired. He went to DMV to get a new one. DMV asked him for an address. He said he did not have one. They told him he had to give them one or they would not renew his license. He said, "Well, I do have an address where I get mail." He was told to put that address down, and he did - indicating on the DMV form that it was a "mail only" address.

A month or so ago, a Sheriff's detective whose job it is to monitor sex registrants in the area, ran a routine check on Joe. As part of such a check, the detective contacts DMV to see whether or not any current address have been listed there by the registrant. He found the address which Joe had given DMV as a "mail only" address.

The detective went to the address. He was told by the guy who lived there, that Joe only used the address to receive mail. He also told the detective that sometimes he lets Joe sleep in the garage in return for doing yard work. When asked how often Joe slept in the garage, the homeowner said, "once a week or so."

Armed with this information, the detective sought, and obtained, a felony filing against Joe for violation of PC 290. What might that violation be? The detective located an osbscure California Department of Justice rule which says that if a person stays at one location as little as once a week, they must designate that address as their residence address, and register it at the local police station. Since Joe was registering as a transient, and had not listed the mail only address as his residence, he was in violation of the law according to this detective and the DA that filed the case.

Anyone smell anything here? Joe was doing everything he could to comply with the registration law. He had no knowledge of the "once a week" rule. He thought he was doing everything right. Joe was not trying to hide anything from anybody. Too bad.

Oh, yes - since most sex crimes are strikes in California, Joe is looking at a minimum of 32 months in state prison if he is convicted.

Joe is upset. So am I.

Good. He shouldn't be out in the first place.

 

[AllieBaba]

One of the requirements for most people out on parole is to maintain a residence and a job.

Joe is doing neither. Poor sex offender. Living off the radar, like all good sex offenders try to do.

Let's hear some more about the neighborhood where the garage is. How many kids right close by? Who hangs out at Joe's? I can guess, and I imagine the cop was onto him too.

 

[goldcatt]

It didn't say he was on parole, Allie. Nor does it say what his crime was. Some sex crimes are truly heinous and I would agree the people who commit them shouldn't be out - ever. But some make me shake my head over why the offenders would have to register at all.

Regardless, if the man was following the rules as they were explained to him, all I can say is WTF? Don't these detectives have anything better to do?

 

[Madeline]

I agree with goldcatt.

 

[westwall]

I wonder what his crime was? I find it interesting that that was left out of the discussion.
Joe would have done well to keep his nose clean however, especially now with the J.C. Dugard case ringing very harshly in the ears of all CA LEO's.

I think that ANY sex offender is going to have a harder time of it in CA. And rightly so.

If you did the crime you have to live with the consequences. If you didn't then you should fight like hell to clear your name.

 

[Mini 14]

On behalf of law-abiding, child loving Americans everywhere, may I just say :

Fuck Joe.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Who said Joe fucked a child? mini, are you thinking back to your roots?

I am always leery of sex crime charges until I get the particulars. some of the stories I've heard are atrocious -- how people got on a list.

that said, wtf said anything about children? I say mini is a Roman Catholic.

 

[George Costanza]

I wonder what his crime was? I find it interesting that that was left out of the discussion.

Oh . . . I see . . . You find it "interesting," eh? Yesssss . . . . I suspect that others will find it interesting as well . . . verrryyyyy interesting . . .

Why, it almost sounds as if he's trying to HIDE something . . . Yes . . . that's it. He's HIDING something. What could it be? What COULD it be?

To tell you the truth, I don't even know what it was. Probably 288a - sex with a child under 14.

Does that make a difference to you? Do you feel that, the worse the crime, the less we have to abandon legal and moral standards in dealing with the convicted person? I know that a number of people here actually do feel that way. Are you one of them? Apparently so. Let's see - under 14. Would it make any difference to you if we were talking about a fully developed, very provocative and very friendly 14 year old female or a four year old boy? If it was a four year old boy, how would you feel about getting together a lynch mob?

Frankly, - no, I'm not going to stoop to that level . . . let's go on to the next point.

If you did the crime you have to live with the consequences. If you didn't then you should fight like hell to clear your name.

And what consequences would you be willing to stand for? What is happening to Joe here? That seem fair to you? Oh, wait a minute - "fair" doesn't enter the picture once we have a conviction for a sex crime. I forgot. How about a lynch mob? Is that a "consequence" you would be willing to live with?

I simply do not understand people like you.

 

[George Costanza]

I will call him "Joe" (not his real name). Joe is 55 years old. When he was in his 30's, Joe was convicted of a sex crime - the type of sex crime that requires him to register with the police department under California's sex registration law (Penal Code, Section 290).

Joe is a transient - a homeless person. He has no address to give the police. In cases such as that, the law requires the person to register every 30 days at the police station nearest to where he most normally is located. Joe faithfully did that.

In November of law year, Joe's driver's license expired. He went to DMV to get a new one. DMV asked him for an address. He said he did not have one. They told him he had to give them one or they would not renew his license. He said, "Well, I do have an address where I get mail." He was told to put that address down, and he did - indicating on the DMV form that it was a "mail only" address.

A month or so ago, a Sheriff's detective whose job it is to monitor sex registrants in the area, ran a routine check on Joe. As part of such a check, the detective contacts DMV to see whether or not any current address have been listed there by the registrant. He found the address which Joe had given DMV as a "mail only" address.

The detective went to the address. He was told by the guy who lived there, that Joe only used the address to receive mail. He also told the detective that sometimes he lets Joe sleep in the garage in return for doing yard work. When asked how often Joe slept in the garage, the homeowner said, "once a week or so."

Armed with this information, the detective sought, and obtained, a felony filing against Joe for violation of PC 290. What might that violation be? The detective located an osbscure California Department of Justice rule which says that if a person stays at one location as little as once a week, they must designate that address as their residence address, and register it at the local police station. Since Joe was registering as a transient, and had not listed the mail only address as his residence, he was in violation of the law according to this detective and the DA that filed the case.

Anyone smell anything here? Joe was doing everything he could to comply with the registration law. He had no knowledge of the "once a week" rule. He thought he was doing everything right. Joe was not trying to hide anything from anybody. Too bad.

Oh, yes - since most sex crimes are strikes in California, Joe is looking at a minimum of 32 months in state prison if he is convicted.

Joe is upset. So am I.

Good. He shouldn't be out in the first place.

I see. Life for sex offenders. Death penalty, maybe?

 

[George Costanza]

One of the requirements for most people out on parole is to maintain a residence and a job.

What is your basis for that statement? It is simply not true.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I will call him "Joe" (not his real name). Joe is 55 years old. When he was in his 30's, Joe was convicted of a sex crime - the type of sex crime that requires him to register with the police department under California's sex registration law (Penal Code, Section 290).

Joe is a transient - a homeless person. He has no address to give the police. In cases such as that, the law requires the person to register every 30 days at the police station nearest to where he most normally is located. Joe faithfully did that.

In November of law year, Joe's driver's license expired. He went to DMV to get a new one. DMV asked him for an address. He said he did not have one. They told him he had to give them one or they would not renew his license. He said, "Well, I do have an address where I get mail." He was told to put that address down, and he did - indicating on the DMV form that it was a "mail only" address.

A month or so ago, a Sheriff's detective whose job it is to monitor sex registrants in the area, ran a routine check on Joe. As part of such a check, the detective contacts DMV to see whether or not any current address have been listed there by the registrant. He found the address which Joe had given DMV as a "mail only" address.

The detective went to the address. He was told by the guy who lived there, that Joe only used the address to receive mail. He also told the detective that sometimes he lets Joe sleep in the garage in return for doing yard work. When asked how often Joe slept in the garage, the homeowner said, "once a week or so."

Armed with this information, the detective sought, and obtained, a felony filing against Joe for violation of PC 290. What might that violation be? The detective located an osbscure California Department of Justice rule which says that if a person stays at one location as little as once a week, they must designate that address as their residence address, and register it at the local police station. Since Joe was registering as a transient, and had not listed the mail only address as his residence, he was in violation of the law according to this detective and the DA that filed the case.

Anyone smell anything here? Joe was doing everything he could to comply with the registration law. He had no knowledge of the "once a week" rule. He thought he was doing everything right. Joe was not trying to hide anything from anybody. Too bad.

Oh, yes - since most sex crimes are strikes in California, Joe is looking at a minimum of 32 months in state prison if he is convicted.

Joe is upset. So am I.

Good. He shouldn't be out in the first place.

So you do not believe in the American Justice system? What would you prefer? We shoot them? You are aware that the list of things one can do to get on the registery includes some pretty benign stuff. You are aware that a 6 year old boy in NC was placed on the registry for kissing another 6 year old at school?

You are unamerican. Tell ya what you communist turd, petition the State you live in to make all sex crimes that require registration to be life with out parole or death, see just how far you get with that.

Until THAT HAPPENS sweetheart, not only is what happened to him a travesty of Justice, it is borderline harassment, and further should fall under cruel and unusual punishment. The cop should be sued and have his career inspected to see if he is this "diligent" with all his cases.

 

[syrenn]

i have to say up front i have no sympathy for sex offenders!

But if this "joe" is a client i hope you can get him off on the charge (no pun intended) he got caught on a technicality and the efforts of over zealous idiots.

 

[strollingbones]

isnt it amazing that will all the real crime out there...some cop took his time to build this case?

this society has made it very hard to sex offenders to re enter mainstream society...not only must they register (which i am in total agreement with) they cant live within certain areas (again i agree with that)
no sex offender should live next to a school. but how does a convicted offender reenter society? any employor who goes into people's homes cannot hire a sex offender...you dont want chester the molester fixing your washer now do you?

we have a local situation brewing....a minister (?) has set up a half way house for sex offenders in the area. You do not find this out from the registry somehow they have bypassed it. Local gossip, then a letter to the editor put it out in public. it is kinda like a retreat and rehab house for offenders...its not going well with locals.

 

[strollingbones]

o and this arresting men for urinating is rather odd. but it does become indecent exposure which is a bit much for draining the snake.

 

[George Costanza]

o and this arresting men for urinating is rather odd. but it does become indecent exposure which is a bit much for draining the snake.

Except on the facts given, this busybody dame couldn't even see Mr. Johnson. I don't handle many indecent exposure cases, but I'm pretty sure ya gotta see somethin' before a law is broken. This was either a travisty, or there's more to it than indicated in the original post.