(8) 116 Cal. 658 (9) 129 Cal. 581 (10)82 C.A. 17 (11)P.C. Sec. 290

(12)W. & I. Sec. 5500, 5502, 5512

(13)74 C.A. (2) 270 (Cf.103 Cal.508)

(14)75 C.A. (2) 907 (15)164 Cal.143 (people v. Dong Pok Yip.) (16)44 C.A. (2) 417 (17)53 C.A. (2) 18 (18)103 Cal. 508

REGISTRATION LAW DEALT BLOW

"A sex offender who has qualified for probation and has been released from 'all penalties and disabilities' as provided by the Penal Code, cannot be tried for a public offense if he fails to register a change of address.

"So the California State District Court of Appeals held in an opinion on file in San Francisco. The opinion was written by Justice Fred B. Wood, with Presiding Justice Raymond E. Peters and Justice A. F. Bray concurring.

"The opinion, which granted a peremptory writ of prohibition, is directly opposite to findings of the Attorney General's office, which held that it is mandatory for probationers convicted of sex offenses to register under the provisions of Section 290 of the Penal Code, even after their reports have been cleared through application of provisions of Section 1203.4, Penal Code.

99

The above is a portion of the introduction to the decision of the appeal case successfully argued by San Francisco Attorney Kenneth C. Zwerin.

In a letter to ONE Magazine Mr. Zwerin further explains: "For some time I have been disturbed over the provisions of Section 290 of the Penal Code, which requires certain convicted sex offenders to register with a law enforcement agency each time the offender changes his residence. I have felt the section was not constitutional because it made an arbitrary distinction between sex offenders and other convicted criminals and because, at most, this section is but a law enforcement technique designed for the convenience of law enforcement agencies, through which a list of

the names and addresses of certain offenders then residing in a given community is compiled and that the disclosure is merely a compilation of former convictions, publicly recorded in the jurisdiction where obtained and, in the case of California, in Sacramento as well.

"A partial clarification of this section now exists as a result of the decision of the District Court of Appeals which has determined that the registration requirement is not applicable to one who has been granted probation and subsequently had his probation terminated. In other words, the requirement of registration ended with the successful termination of the probation. The court refused to pass on the constitutionality of the section, holding that it was not necessary for its present decision.

"A great deal of credit," Mr. Zwerin continues, "should be given the San Francisco Adult Probation Officer who encouraged me to file the petition and to the individual who permitted his name to be used in the petition and was not abashed to have posterity ascertain that he had suffered a felony conviction for a sexual offense."

It should now be the duty and pleasure of every homosexual living in California who has been convicted of a sex crime which led to probation, to go to his attorney and have those technicalities performed which will release him from the onus of sex registration.