Great News! Ex Post Facto II moves forward
Ex Post Facto II will move forward!!!
The below Order just came down from the Northern District of Florida. It says it’s partially granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss (which sounds like it’s bad), but that means that other parts of the motion to dismiss were denied and the case will move forward. The court has set a scheduling order, with a trial date set for January 17, 2023.
The main issue that the court will proceed forward on is the three-day travel requirement, which the Court agreed was absurd. This is also great news as the legislature is currently trying to reduce that even further to three “parts of a day” or 24 hours for vacation rentals!
Separately, the Court denied the Plaintiff’s motion to proceed anonymously, so unfortunately she will not be able to proceed under the Jane Doe pseudonym. We need to do our best to encourage and protect this brave individual who is fighting for all of us.
We will do a more comprehensive analysis of the Order short, but in the interest of time wanted to share it with you quickly.
The simplest way to solve all this is the start filing injunctions against the state of Florida for defamation of character mental anguish stress and and suffering and also 542 us-93 for civil rights violation Class B action
This will get the state’s attention if all of us start filing on this because it’s the truth there is mental anguish stress and suffering going on if you can file on it when you’re injured why not file this the same way when you have been convicted of this crime it is called similar facts here also slavery was abolished in 1865 so that means we are slaves of the state while we’re on the registry so slavery was abolished that qualifies it as a federal class B action lawsuit thank you for for listening
How many registrants will be in violation when the sheriff’s office doesn’t do registration on certain days and times? Can’t say, “ Your Honor the legislators keep changing the definition of a day and my sheriff’s office is just as confused as me. We get nothing from FDLE except a warrant for non-compliance.”
Florida needs a requirement that legislators do no harm to their communities, state, and are smarter than a 1st grader.
A layman’s more comprehensive analysis/conclusions of the Order:
Based on the claims that were dismissed, we can ascertain that strict liability does not apply to the enforcement of the registry since the judge stated, “The statute does not impose strict criminal liability.”
We can follow FDLE guidance on the three-day rule, which I have explained ad nauseam, since the judge stated, “The statute is not unconstitutionally vague,” in response to the claim that the statute’s requirements for travel-related disclosures are unconstitutionally vague.
I see both of these “defeats” as beneficial to fairness and common sense.
Still on the three-day rule, the judge thinks it will be ruled as punitive since he stated, “At the motion-to-dismiss stage, it cannot be held that the three-day temporary residence provision has “a rational connection to a nonpunitive purpose.””
Since the judge did not dismiss the ex post facto claim, but narrowed it, I think any ratcheting up of, or additional requirements after Doe v. Moore [June 6, 2005] may be seen as not having a rational connection to a nonpunitive purpose, thus punishment, thus unconstitutional for a “civil” law.
Even though many consider Doe v. Moore a disaster, it did establish a snapshot of the Floriduh registry at that time. Most of us suffer from “enhanced” requirements enacted after that date.
Although the entire Floriduh registry cannot be struck down, the judge did state, “An injunction precluding the defendant from enforcing the registry statute’s unconstitutional provisions, if indeed there are any, will solve the problem.”
So I do see this as a positive step forward, even though we have to wait another 11 months for the next phase.
Excellent analysis by JZ.
Whats FDLE guidance on the 3-day rule? I doubt my county is following it. Is there, say, a source document?
And why 11 months til the next phase? I didn’t know these timelines were predictable.
FDLE filed a motion to dismiss to our Does v Swearingen complaint in November of 2018
Starting at bottom of Page 11:
“1. The Meaning of “Day”
Plaintiffs’ first vagueness challenges alleges it is unclear whether the word “day” within §775.21(1)(n) and § 943.0435(1)(f) means a “full 24-hour day or a specific date.” (D.E. 1 at ¶ 38.)
They ask whether a hotel arrival at 11:50 p.m. on May 1 would mean that May 1 is the first day, or that the first day ends 24 hours after the arrival. (Id.) This hypothetical shows that Plaintiffs are not actually raising any question as to the meaning of the word “day,” but as to how Florida law generally computes the time in which an action must be done. That computational question is not governed by the word “day,” or by § 943.0435 at all.
In any event, a statute’s words are not vague if they can be ascertained through “judicial decisions, common laws, dictionaries, and the words themselves because they possess a common and
generally accepted meaning.” United States v. Eckhardt, 466 F.3d 938, 944 (11 th Cir. 2006) (quoting United States v. Bowker, 372 F.3d 365, 381 (6 th Cir. 2004)); United States v. Panfil, 338 F.3d 1299, 1301 (11 th Cir. 2003) (statutory terms not vague where they have “plain and ordinary meanings”).
Despite Plaintiffs’ allegation that the word “day” is vague, a “day” has a common and generally accepted meaning. “The general rule is that when the word ‘day’ is used it means calendar day which includes the entire day from midnight to midnight.” State v. Sheets, 338 N.W. 2d 886, 887 (Iowa1983). See also Burgo v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 122 F.3d 140, 143 (2d Cir. 1997) (“A day is the period of time during which the earth makes on revolution on its axis, the average length of this interval being 24 hours.”) (citing Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 294 (10 th ed. 1997)); S. Tr. Ins. Co. v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n of Summerville, 310 S.E. 2d 712, 713 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983) (when not qualified, the word “day” means calendar day “consisting of 24 hours from midnight to midnight”).
A day is an indivisible unit; the law does not recognize fractions of a day. Lapeyre v. United States, 84 U.S. 191, 198 (1872); Maxwell v. Jacksonville Loan & Imp. Co., 34 So. 255, 264 (Fla. 1903).
A court must presume the Legislature knows the plain and ordinary meaning of the words it uses in statutes. Brooks v. Anastasia Mosquito Control Dist., 148 So. 2d 64, 66 (Fla. 1963). See also United States v. Forest Hills Garden E. Condo. Ass’n, Inc., 990 F. Supp. 2d 1344, 1347 (S.D. Fla. 2014) (courts presume “the Legislature ‘said what it meant and meant what it said’”) (quoting Rine v. Imagitas, Inc., 590 F.3d 1215, 1222 (11 th Cir. 2009)).
If the Legislature wanted to couch a temporary residence in terms of 24-hour blocks and not calendar days, it would have done so—as it did in numerous other parts of the statute. For example, § 943.0435(2)(a)1, (b)3 and (4)(a) all require reporting “within 48 hours,” while
§ 943.0435(b)2 uses both hours and days (“within 48 hours,” “every 30 days”).”
Apparently, Legislator Hooper doesn’t know the plain and ordinary meaning of the words he uses in SB 1932.
Thank you, JZ. I will send this info to the Senate Criminal Justice Committee where the bill is now sitting. As a member of this committee, Hooper will be receiving the info, too.
FDLE has issued no guidance to registration offices. Nevertheless, any definition will become moot if the legislature re-defines it in law. Then a day (for purposes of residence registration) will become whatever the legislature says it is.
What’s a day
You know what, I think I am going back to work. I will work for ten minutes and tell my boss, “Hey, according to the law, a day is considered “Any part of a day, so as far as I am concerned, I gave you my day, now pay me”.
As the law changes, how is it not retroactive that folks that accepted terms like 20 year term to apply for removal, but now must wait 25 years.
When the law was written, it stated that 20 year started at date of conviction if not incarcerated. It now states 20 year starts at completion of sentence whether it be probation or prison?
Sorna had not been passed but folks must accept moving to goal post or changing the rules at halftime.
Attorney Ron Kleiner, on FAC’s Attorney Referral page, has successfully argued something similar in court— that you can’t change the goalposts on removal.
Another year! Another hope!! Thanks FAC!!!!!!
One individual characterized the internet identifier case as a ‘loss,’ below.
People forget how bad the internet identifier law had become. It was convoluted and opaque but practically would have required registration of every URL you visited and would have been a severe burden on internet use. It was my registration office that advised me of the injunction against the new law, instructing only to register identifiers used for direct social communication. The registration office predicted registrants would ultimately win their challenge, since the expanded law was “a joke,” and they were right. At the time I was not even familiar with the organization behind this challenge.
On the minus side, Does II will not give us any additional relief on internet identifiers unless substantial new evidence is presented. I normally shy away from predicting what courts will do, but in this case we are in the exact same court!