“As any teenager or adult knows, intercourse is distinct from oral copulation, involving a wholly different sexual act that, unlike oral copulation, may result in pregnancy and the birth of a child,” he wrote. “Given this significant difference in the potential real-life consequences of the two acts, the Legislature reasonably could decide that different registration schemes for the two groups of offenders are appropriate as a matter of public policy.” 160Want local news?Sign up for the Localist and stay informed Something went wrong. Please try again.subscribeCongratulations! You’re all set! AD Quality Auto 360p 720p 1080p Top articles1/5READ MORECasino Insider: Here’s a look at San Manuel’s new high limit rooms, Asian restaurant Adults who have sexual activity with children under 16 are required to register. The state maintains a public database with personal information of registered sex offenders. The justices, however, left intact a provision granting trial judges the discretion to demand registration for both categories of adult sex offenders – those who have oral copulation or sexual intercourse with minors ages 16 and 17. The case was brought by Vincent Hofsheier of Santa Cruz County, who was convicted in 2003 of having oral sex with a 16-year-old girl when he was 22. He was sentenced to 120 days in jail. Neither his attorney, Paul Couenhoven, nor a representative of the California Attorney General’s Office returned calls for comment. Justice Marvin Baxter was the lone dissenter. SAN FRANCISCO – The California Supreme Court has overturned state law requiring adults 21 years or older who are convicted of having oral sex with 16- and 17-year-olds to automatically register for life as sex offenders. The court, noting it distinguished between oral copulation and sexual intercourse, ruled 6-1 that the law was unconstitutional. The majority said the law, first adopted in 1947, was too harsh or unfair because adults 21 or older who are convicted of having sexual intercourse with minors ages 16 and 17 are not automatically required to register as sex offenders. The justices pointed out that lawmakers declined to treat both categories of offenders equally three times in the last 10 years. The court found that, because the law did not treat both categories of sex offenders similarly, the law violated state and federal equal-protection rights. “Mandatory lifetime registration of all persons who … were convicted of voluntary oral copulation with a minor of the age of 16 or 17, but not of someone convicted of voluntary sexual intercourse with a minor of the same age, violates the equal-protection clauses of the federal and state constitutions,” Justice Joyce Kennard wrote for the majority.