SB 680 amends the Sex Offender Registration Act to broaden which convictions trigger registration, adds a carve-in for unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor (Section 261.5) for offenses on or after January 1, 2026, and sets out detailed tier assignments (10 years, 20 years, or life) tied to offense categories, prior convictions, and a static risk instrument (SARATSO). It also creates a temporary “tier-to-be-determined” category that allows immediate registration while the Department of Justice assigns a final tier within 24 months and requires crediting of registration time served during that interim.
The changes matter for anyone who prosecutes, defends, supervises, or manages people subject to the registry — and for campus police and local law enforcement who must process registrations. The bill shifts some weight from purely categorical offense lists toward a hybrid system that uses offense lists, age-gap rules, and a risk-assessment instrument, while adding administrative deadlines and new extensions to registration periods for failures to register.
At a Glance
What It Does
SB 680 expands the list of registerable offenses and specifies three registration tiers (10, 20, or life). It adds age-gap rules for certain minor-sex offenses, makes SARATSO ‘well above average’ a trigger for lifetime registration, and authorizes a temporary tier designation while DOJ determines a registrant’s permanent tier.
Who It Affects
People convicted of sexual offenses that involve minors (including certain Section 261.5 offenses after Jan 1, 2026), local police and sheriffs, campus police for UC/CSU/community college residences, the California Department of Justice, and criminal defense counsel and probation officers handling tier assignments and risk assessments.
Why It Matters
The bill increases the population subject to registration and lengthens or makes lifetime registration more likely through both offense-based and risk-score criteria. It also creates new administrative duties and deadlines for DOJ and local law enforcement, and produces durable collateral consequences for affected individuals.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 680 revises the Sex Offender Registration Act by updating who must register and how long they must remain on the registry. It inserts unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor (Section 261.5) into the catalog of offenses that can trigger registration if the offense occurred on or after January 1, 2026, and adds narrow age-gap rules: some offenders are required to register only when they are more than 10 years older than the minor, while others are exempted from registry requirements if the age gap is 10 years or less and the conviction is the sole registerable offense.
The bill also clarifies that courts retain discretion to require registration under Section 290.006 even when the statutory baseline would not mandate it.
SB 680 defines three tiers for the registration period: tier one (minimum 10 years) generally captures misdemeanors and nonserious felonies; tier two (minimum 20 years) applies to specified felony categories and repeat offenses; and tier three (life) applies to an enumerated set of serious offenses, repeat convictions that later involve violent felonies, certain civil commitments as sexually violent predators, and a high-risk SARATSO designation. The bill supplies long lists and cross-references to other Penal Code sections to determine placement, making tiering a mix of categorical rules and individualized risk assessment.To deal with cases where an appropriate tier cannot be immediately determined, the Department of Justice may place registrants in a tier-to-be-determined category; those people must continue to register and receive credit for the time spent in that temporary status.
DOJ must resolve the final tier within 24 months. The statute also specifies tolling rules for the minimum registration period — time is tolled during subsequent incarceration or commitment — and prescribes automatic extensions to the required registration period for convictions for failing to register (one year added per misdemeanor, three years per felony).
Finally, the bill preserves an existing juvenile exception: wards of the juvenile court generally do not have to register, except where another provision specifically requires it.
The Five Things You Need to Know
A person must register within five working days of coming into or changing residence in a California city, county, or covered campus; campus police must be notified if the registrant lives on campus or in campus facilities.
Section 261.5 (unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor) is now a potentially registerable offense if the offense occurred on or after January 1, 2026, subject to the bill’s age-gap rules and judicial discretion under Section 290.006.
The bill formally makes a 'well above average' SARATSO score a trigger for lifetime (tier three) registration, tying an actuarial risk instrument into the tiering scheme.
If DOJ cannot immediately assign a tier, it may place the person in a tier-to-be-determined category but must make a final tier determination within 24 months and credit the registrant for time spent in the temporary category.
The statute tolls a registrant’s minimum tier period during subsequent incarceration, placement, or commitment and increases the required minimum by one year for each misdemeanor conviction and three years for each felony conviction for failing to register.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Citation and scope reference to the Sex Offender Registration Act
This short provision names Sections 290–290.024 as the Sex Offender Registration Act and clarifies that references to 'the Act' point to that sections block. It’s a housekeeping clause that ensures all amendments and cross-references in the bill unambiguously attach to the existing registry framework.
Where and when registrants must report
Subdivision (b) restates and tightens the registration mechanics: a person who must register must do so with the local police chief or county sheriff where they live (or campus police if residing on UC/CSU/community college property) within five working days of entering or changing residence. That five-day working deadline applies to short-term and campus residence and makes clear campuses have affirmative duties to receive registrations for residents. Practically, this requires coordination between campus law enforcement and municipal agencies to track campus-based registrants.
Expanded and detailed list of registerable offenses and age-gap rules
Subdivision (c) enumerates the convictions that trigger registration, pulling together decades of statutes and predecessors. The bill explicitly adds offenses tied to unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor (Section 261.5) for offenses committed on or after Jan. 1, 2026, plus a new paragraph that requires registration for certain 18-and-over offenders convicted under a solicitation provision (647(l)(2)) when the defendant is more than ten years older than the minor. It also creates a narrow non-registration carve-out for some sex-with-minor convictions where the offender is not more than ten years older than the minor and where that conviction is the only one requiring registration — but preserves judicial authority to require registration regardless.
Tier definitions: who is subject to 10, 20 years, or lifetime registration
Subdivision (d) establishes the three-tier structure. Tier one (10 years) covers misdemeanors and nonserious felonies; tier two (20 years) covers specified felonies and repeat offenses; and tier three (life) covers an extensive list of enumerated felonies, civil commitments as sexually violent predators, habitual sex offenders, certain repeat convictions, and a SARATSO result classified as 'well above average.' The scheme mixes categorical offense triggers with risk-score triggers, creating parallel pathways to lifetime registration.
Out-of-state convictions, temporary tiers, and DOJ timelines
The bill addresses people who must register because of convictions in other jurisdictions: if an out-of-state offense is equivalent to a California registerable offense, DOJ places the person in the matching tier; absent an equivalent offense, the default is tier two unless SARATSO or other criteria justify tier three. Where tier placement can’t be immediately ascertained, DOJ may assign a registrant to a tier-to-be-determined status, during which the person must continue to register and will receive credit toward the minimum registration period. DOJ must resolve the final tier within 24 months, creating a narrow statutory deadline for administrative review and record-matching.
Tolling, extensions for failure to register, and juvenile exception
Subdivision (e) explains when the minimum registration clock runs and pauses: the minimum period begins on release from incarceration, placement, commitment, or supervision, and the clock is tolled during subsequent incarceration or civil commitment (but not for mere arrests). The statute prescribes automatic extensions to the required minimum for convictions of failing to register (one year per misdemeanor, three years per felony). Subdivision (f) preserves the existing rule that wards of the juvenile court generally do not have to register, subject to limited exceptions spelled out elsewhere in the Act.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Criminal Justice across all five countries.
Explore Criminal Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Child-victims and their advocates — by expanding the list of registerable offenses and creating clearer, risk-informed pathways to lifetime registration, the law increases the likelihood that serious offenders will remain monitored for longer periods.
- Local law enforcement and campus police — they get a clearer statutory mandate to register campus-based residents and a single statutory reference for a broader set of reportable offenses, which can aid local tracking and community-protection planning.
- Prosecutors and probation departments — the hybrid approach (offense lists plus SARATSO) gives prosecutors multiple avenues to seek longer registration periods and provides probation with objective criteria for supervision planning.
- California Department of Justice — DOJ gains explicit authority to temporarily classify registrants while requiring a 24-month resolution window and crediting interim registration time, formalizing administrative practices.
Who Bears the Cost
- People convicted of the newly covered offenses — adding Section 261.5 offenses (post-2026) and tightening age-gap rules increases the population subject to registration and could push more people into longer or lifetime registration categories.
- Local police departments and campus public safety units — the five-working-day reporting deadline and increased campus registration obligations raise front-line intake and recordkeeping workload.
- Department of Justice — DOJ must process tier equivalency for out-of-state convictions, run SARATSO assessments where appropriate, manage a tier-to-be-determined caseload, and meet the 24-month adjudication deadline, all of which create administrative burdens and potential needs for additional resources.
- Courts — judges retain and may exercise discretion to require registration in borderline cases under Section 290.006, which may increase litigation and require more frequent judicial fact-finding about age gaps and offense equivalency.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between stronger public-protection by broadening who must register and making lifetime registration more attainable, versus the increased collateral consequences, administrative burdens, and due-process questions that arise from mixing categorical offense rules with actuarial risk scores and temporary administrative tiers.
SB 680 combines categorical offense lists with a risk-assessment trigger for lifetime registration, which creates implementation and fairness questions. Relying on SARATSO as a statutory trigger raises practical issues: jurisdictions must ensure consistent, validated scoring and attorneys will likely litigate score inputs and coding rules.
DOJ’s 24-month mandate to finalize tiers is helpful as a deadline but risks creating a backlog of people in the interim tier-to-be-determined category if staffing and data-matching capacity are insufficient. Credit for time served in that interim status reduces some unfairness but does not eliminate the uncertainty and collateral effects (housing, employment, travel restrictions) that registrants suffer while awaiting a final tier.
The bill also introduces potentially awkward cross-jurisdictional mapping: where an out-of-state conviction lacks a direct California equivalent, the statute defaults to tier two unless SARATSO or later convictions justify tier three. That default may both under-and over-include people depending on differences in statutory elements across jurisdictions.
Finally, the age-gap carve-outs and the preserved judicial discretion in Section 290.006 create inconsistent outcomes: two people with similar conduct could face different registration results depending on prosecutorial charging choices, court findings, or whether the offense predated Jan. 1, 2026. These features will likely spawn litigation over retroactivity, equivalency, and the limits of judicial discretion.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.