the facts of this case compel the conclusion that this is an ex post facto statute emphasizing the factor about whether there's a rational connection going on punitive purposes i don't like to go on briefly to indicate why the california supreme court i should say how the california stanch statutory scheme and smith registry maint first sex offenders in alaska is maintained by the department of public health which is a regulatory agency in california it's maintained by the department of justice which the chief law enforcement officer of the state of california in alaska the notification provisions are found within the health safety and housing code and the registration provisions are within the criminal procedure code no matter which contains numerous unquestionably civil provisions in california it's contained within the penal code and as we've indicated in two of our breeds it's a part of the penal code that the fines very serious offenses it's lumped with in the same chapter and  consecutive numbering for example with sodomy incest forcible sexual abuse of the small child and so forth in the state of alaska the act itself had no procedures its enforcement is concerned contained within the act and deferred its means of implementation to the apartment of public safety a regulatory agency in california the procedures are set forth specifically within the penal code and within the penal of the statute moving to the effect branch of the intent of sex test in alaska the disability presented and the restraint was minor it doesn't restrain consequences that that flow from registration we cited in our brief education code section four four zero one zero that was incomplete and reviewing it over the weekend i realized that we had the site also the companion education  cannot obtain a teaching credential in california sexual psychopaths those convicted of serious felony controlled substances those found the court to be criminally insane and those who register under penal code section two ninety now there is no doubt that there are some people who have to register under two ninety who should most likely be in prison the rest of their life and clearly never ever going to teaching credential but the problem with two nineteen and this is my reference to justice souter's concurring opinion is it's overbroad and in the example we provided in our briefs the eighteen year old young man who to so here we have a young man who decides for whatever reason with his girlfriend they don't want to go all the way get caught he has to register as a sex pervert and he's treated the education for the same way as they say that he sexual psychopath and a person found to be criminally insane so we have an over breath rick problem here continuing in alaska offender need not update their registration in person in california the registrant must personally go to the police station the sheriff's department and register within five days for example of their birthday but can't to cart and you must consider and one can't ignore the california three strikes law because there are people being sent to prison for twenty five years to life in california for seventy two statutes where they talk about rounding up the usual suspects a person that's registered has a higher chance of being in a lineup of being possibly god forbid falsely accused of another charge so that i something that far as i'm always and that ties to the fact that in california unlike an alaska one has to register as a sex offender for the rest of their life in alaska for the serious type of offens over breath requirement that i've been talking about that's the overgrowth requirement that justice souter talks about in his concurring opinion and smith i want we read the quote you have it in our supplemental brief that is what he is talking about there is something that overrides all of this however respected it must be acknowledged but it must be looked at closely and when you look closely at the decision the most recent one being the casting i was decision for example and if you look at footnote five of the majority opinion and then any judge in any case where the judge makes the discretionary call that the criminal act was for sexual compulsion or sexual gratification as the motivating force behind the criminal act then there you have a discretionary call that the trial judge makes upon the facts of the case and says this person is dangerous and this person should register and it avoids all the over breadth requirements that justice souter was concerned about and then emerging upon this court so under thaksin of that case and the part of penal code section two ninety under california law that the california supreme court was looking at  before the california supreme court and passed you know it also had a unique factual pattern in that case also in that the law was changed to either some vision we're talking about here was added between the time three ways one the statute was amended while the case was pending and before sentencing occurred the defendant did not move as i recall on the facts to withdraw his plea and want to hear it and allow the i think that's a very very very important point the final point before my time runs out because i'd like to reserve about a minute to minute to have if i could please in looking at the intent behind these if we just step back a little bit to sexual battery and california as we discussed in our brief between a male and adult female in a bar absolutely inappropriate conduct absolutely appropriate for a court to intervene but is this the kind of thing where someone would have to register for example and then if they went to college after they grew up and got hopefully more mature have to report to the campus police that they're registering not the dean of students but to the campus please so this is a very serious  that affects young people throughout the state and it all ties over breath  points was not unreasonable and in fact supreme court cases in both areas support the decision of the state court and the subsequent decision of the district court in  scheme is unlikely to be considered as one for purposes of meeting constitutional requirements we're only looking here at our registration law california does not require unlike alaska that advisement of the registration not part of the judgment although my colleague notes that in a plea bargain situation there is a california supreme court case from the early ninety's holding that advisement should be made at the time of the plea that holding is questionable in light of published the addresses and employer information to the whole world of all registered sex offenders in alaska in california we do not have currently an internet site we have a site can only be added which can only be accessed by the public if they go into a police station present california identification prove that they're a california resident and then they can look at some of the registered sex offenders but not all there's a category of sex offenders whose offenses were not considered don't have a college student in this case we don't have somebody who is eighteen having sex with their seventeen year old girlfriend consensual act these examples referred to by mr rochelle do not apply in this case in this case we have issue here is whether or not there was clear error in applying lambert to california which is the u s supreme court case dealing with what kind of notice is required for do proper proces been released in the early eighties given the form saying he had to register nobody realized that his offense was a minute from one part of to ninety at that time so he did register being given the official notice that he was required to and he complied with the registration statute believed and did have actual knowledge at the time that he returned to california that he was required to register there was a court trial in this case on the violation of the registration statute in one thousand nine hundred seventy titian and chose not to testify the trial cou nine d it was really not even much more actively applied to him and he violated the registration law for years after it was added into to ninety again so i'm not even sure we have a retroactive application of the statute in this case capital like the los angeles ordinance requiring all felons to register with the city so this very different situation that we have today when someone is convicted of a sex offense but in california i can speak for the state because i do represent our  registered were then told that he had a duty to register here before he never signed the state the forty seven form which he didn't sign when he was released from prison he would be given that form he would be advised of his duty to register he would be given five working days register in the later learned it wasn't true anymore when he returns to california as new at least i notice there's a possibility that he may have to register that the law may have changed he should be at least on advisement that he should check the statute to see how it now applie register with the state so i would say he's on advisement or he's on notice that he should check at that point he has the probability of such knowledge even if he doesn't have actual knowledge of the statute they're on the books it would have been easy to find then you look at the circumstances within which mr happens signed he signed it ten days before he was released from prison because he says on the form you don't get released unless you have knowledge signing it they registered three times while he's on parole side it's you in the briefs of the california law that says if you don't do it they tell you to do on parole including registering you go back to prison that's the factual pattern that the record confirms this occurred with him was through the prole he stopped registering and that ties through a justice by the was talking about as far as the notice thank you