Court Opinion

ID: 9747441
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 15:15:23.46071+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:23.756213
License: Public Domain

POLLAK, J.
I concur in the thoughtful majority opinion, which has correctly demonstrated the hopeless ambiguity that has been created by *637having attempted to engraft on the provisions requiring certain sex offenders to register their residence the requirement that offenders with no residence register their undefined “location.” Moreover, I believe that the majority opinion preserves as much of the statute as can be given an intelligible interpretation in this respect, by holding that a transient, or homeless, offender must register in those jurisdictions in which he (or she) is located for at least five working days, even though he cannot be required to specify every “location” at which he may be found or every time he changes his “location.” I join in urging the Legislature to revisit these provisions and to consider enacting separate provisions which comprehensibly specify the registration requirements of an offender without a residence. I also join in the implicit suggestion contained in footnote 11 of the lead opinion (ante, at p. 636), that the Department of Justice consider exercising the authority presently conferred by subdivision (a)(1)(C) of Penal Code section 290 by developing an appropriate form for transient offenders to complete, that will provide appropriate additional information about the offender’s customary whereabouts and that can be reasonably understood and completed by the offender.
I write separately to express one caveat to the majority opinion, that may be more theoretical than real, but which I believe further underscores the need for legislative clarification. I agree with the majority opinion that “ ‘Located’ for purposes of these requirements means present in the jurisdiction on a regular basis.” (Maj. opn. ante, at p. 634.) I also agree with the statement that “[o]ne who for five working days sleeps in a park in San Mateo and spends the day walking the streets of Redwood City would have to register as a transient in both jurisdictions by the fifth day.” (Id. at p. 635.) However, I believe that implicit in these statements is the additional requirement that the offender must be present in the particular jurisdiction for some appreciable period of time on each of those days. I do not believe that a transient offender who commutes daily between San Francisco and San Jose must register in every jurisdiction through which the offender passes. Although only the Legislature has the ability to establish a fixed and precise time period, I would suppose that such a period would be measured in hours rather than minutes. I do not understand the majority opinion necessarily to disagree with this view, but simply to leave to another day issues that would arise if it were shown that a transient offender was present every day in a particular jurisdiction but only fleetingly or in transit. Such issues may never arise if the statute is promptly clarified.
In this same regard, I would also emphasize the obvious fact that transient offenders may not always be aware of the jurisdiction that they are within at any particular time. It is one thing to expect a person to know the jurisdiction within which their residence is located. It is another to expect a transient to be aware of the imaginary lines that separate one municipality from another and from the unincorporated areas of the county, and that separate one county *638from another. In view of the importance to the statutory scheme that the offender be given clear notice of his obligations under the statute, this is another difficulty that must be addressed if there is to be a workable registration scheme for transient offenders. It is a factor that suggests consideration of a single statewide registration system.
On October 20, 2003, the opinion was modified to read as printed above.