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.