No photo
Asker
Posted over 1 year ago.

Mr. Hill, my question was not regarding the constitutionality of registration itself (I accept that as settled law) rut rather is it constitutional to except one group (PC 290s) from the COR process time waiver whereas every other group of post-ligitants is able to avail themselves. 4852.22 is a brand new piece of legislation and I'd assume that the case law in this area is rather thin. The one case of which I am aware that might have some bearing, People v Schoop (2012) CA 1st, found that Equal Protection was violated when mandating different waiting periods for COR applications for litigants with similar 311 cases: http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/LawDecisionCA.jsp?id=1202582796909&slreturn=20130930154135

No photo
Asker
Posted over 1 year ago.

Here is a complete record of the court's finding in People v. Schoop:

http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20CACO%2020121227029

No photo
Asker
Posted over 1 year ago.

I believe that People v. Tuck (2012) CA 1st could also prove inciteful in that the court opined that denying in whole the post litigant' ability to even apply for a COR was a violation of Equal Protection:

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1596912.html

No photo
Asker
Posted over 1 year ago.

I think I need Bruce Nickerson or Chance Oberstein to join Avvo.