SB57 does a 180 on doffing sex offenders

Oct 15th, 2013 | By | Category: Politics-Relevant;, Sex Offenders

capitolGovernor Brown signed SB57 on Saturday.  This new law requires that sex offenders who remove their GPS ankle monitors be returned to custody for not less than 180 days.

Clicking here will link to a LA Daily News piece on this story.  Thanks to Caroline for the link.

Sponsored Content

4 Comments to “SB57 does a 180 on doffing sex offenders”

  1. los angeles sleuth says:

    This date I took the time to call State Senator Ted Lieu’s Sacramento office. I had in the past made telephonic contact with his Chief of Staff Jeff Gozzo. Today Jeff was not in the office as per staff member Jessica Golly ( just another staff member who is unable or just does not want to answer those pointed questions ) Ms. Golly did after placing me on hold came back to the telephone and stated the following . This new law applies to those on active state parole supervision only. The new penal code to be 3010.10 PC. A return to custody for this type of parole violation to 180 days. As we already know this 180 days as per. AB 109 would be reduced to 90 days. When I asked Ms. Golly if this new penal code 3010.10 PC would be classified as a low level , non -violent or even a violent criminal offense she was lost for words. She acknowledged that she was not aware of which criminal offenses were classified as violent vs non-violent. I can only surmise that the explanation of why Senator Ted Lieu did not include those sex offenders who are under AB 109 probation supervision and other sex offenders also under various county probation supervision were excluded from 3010.10 is because Governor Brown, state elected officials, and the current and former administrators all lied to the residents of the state of California surrounding the 3 N’s of AB 109. The only good thing one can say about State Senator Ted Lieu is that he was honest and forthcoming when he told the immediate family members of murdered victim Erica Escobar ( person arrested and charged with her murder and now in trial was under Non-Revocable Parole ) was that he voted no for non -revocable parole yet he supported AB 109. His explanation for his support for AB 109 was to “save the state of California money and it had nothing to do with public safety “.

  2. Chloe79 says:

    Is this law only for those under parole supervision? Or does it pertain also to sex offenders under LCS, PRCS, and regular probation as well???

    • Bob Walsh says:

      As far as I can tell it only covers persons under state parole for sex offenses, but I could be wrong. I have been wrong before. The last time was September of 2004, I thought I had been wrong about something but it turned out I wasn’t.