Sex Offender Registration – Reaction or Policy? (CA Penal Code 290)

Last Modified: October 13, 2020
September 25, 2015 | Rabin Nabizadeh | Child Molestation, Sex Crimes

In a bizarre and mostly academically dishonest opinion, (Johnson v. Department of Justice) the Supreme Court of California essentially overruled the previously controlling opinion in People v. Hofsheier.  Hofsheier meant to correct an obvious conflict in the California Penal Code section 290.  Simply put, CA Penal Code section 290 requires those who orally copulate a minor (CA Penal Code Section 288a(b)(2) to register as sex offenders while not requiring those who have sex with a minor (CA Penal Code section 261.5) the same.  For years, no one doubted the obvious rationale behind this ruling.  Courts, DA’s and defense counsel found Hofsheier intuitive and rational.

The Supreme court’s reasoning is hard to decipher.  In order to overrule the previous opinion, the courts cites the preservation of family as a possible legislative intent behind the statutory scheme in CA PC 290.  That is, the court states that the statutory scheme is not contradictory as the legislature’s inclusion of obviously less severe conduct (oral copulation) is meant to protect those who may have had sex with a partner it can cause a pregnancy and requiring the father of such a relationship to register as a sex offender may interfere in the formation of a healthy family.

This is clearly an absurd conclusion for many reasons:  First, the defendant who orally copulates a minor, is not less likely to marry the minor and produce offspring.  Second, given that CA PC 261.5 contemplates only heterosexual intercourse, Any homosexual behavior is therefore subject to the registration requirement.  Finally, as the court states, CA PC 290 is meant to allow police and probation departments to keep track of certain predatory individuals.  It is time we admit that requiring so many defendants to register as sex offenders makes it impossible to keep track of those more likely to reoffend.  At a time when every county in the state is making budget cuts, it is imperative that only those defendants that are likely to reoffend should be subject to mandatory life time registration.

The opinion is unclear on whether previous plea agreements, in which defendants were charged with a registrable offense, but which entered a plea to CA PC 261.5, most likely for the express purpose of avoiding sex offender registration, may be subject to petitions by the District Attorney for inclusion in the list.

It is clear that this opinion is a move in the wrong direction.  It is up to the defense bar to navigate this obscure reasoning and avoid this serious consequence for our clients.  This opinion makes our task more difficult and society less safe.

latest news

February 6, 2024
What Can I Expect After Being Arrested for a DUI in San Jose?

Getting arrested for a DUI in San Jose can be a stressful and confusing experience. You might have many questions about what happens next and what you should do. Knowing the process and what to expect can help you navigate this challenging situation. It’s important to remember that a DUI arrest is severe, and the […]

February 6, 2024
Effective DUI Defenses You Can Utilize

Facing a DUI charge can be a burdensome experience and frightening. You might feel like there’s no way to defend yourself, but that’s not true. There are several effective defenses that skilled DUI lawyers use to protect their clients. Understanding these defenses can be crucial in fighting a DUI charge. DUI defenses vary depending on […]

October 10, 2023
Do You Lose Your License Immediately After a DUI Charge in San Jose?

Driving under the influence (DUI) is a major offense in San Jose. If you’ve been arrested for a DUI, you might be worried about the future of your driver’s license. Following a DUI arrest, you might be wondering what to do next. Knowing your rights and the next steps can significantly impact the outcome of […]