Ft. Lauderdale’s Sex Offender Residency Restriction Judged Unconstitutional

Weekly Update 2018-03-27

Dear Members and Advocates,

This weekly update comes to you with amazing news. The City of Ft. Lauderdale’s Sex Offender Residency Restriction was found to be Unconstitutional and a violation of State and Federal laws against retroactive punishment.

For more details about this tremendous decision, visit: https://floridaactioncommittee.org/ft-lauderdale-florida-sex-offender-residency-restriction-declared-unconstitutional/.

Out of respect to the defendant’s privacy we won’t publish the order, but will tell you that the judge found that although the Ft. Lauderdale legislator’s intent was for this law to be non-punitive, in effect it’s punitive and therefore needed to be struck down. Congratulations to the Defendants and their Attorneys (among which is Val Jonas, who will represent us in our forthcoming Ex Post Facto challenge and is part of the legal team for the Miami-Dade SORR lawsuit.

For all those who were beginning to lose hope, this should  lift your spirits! We always knew that when it came to the legislators we have nothing coming to us. But in the courts, the pendulum is swinging in our direction.

Sincerely,

The Florida Action Committee

4 thoughts on “Ft. Lauderdale’s Sex Offender Residency Restriction Judged Unconstitutional

  • March 27, 2018 at 1:33 am
    Permalink

    Offense date 1/1/1997. Sentenced 4/3/1998. So many retroactive statutes applied to me since then, can’t even begin to count them all.

    Reply
    • March 27, 2018 at 6:50 pm
      Permalink

      Offense date 12-25-1995, sentenced 6-1996 to a non registerable misdemeanor offense in Connecticut. Fast forward to March 2018, went in for re registration today and in constant fear of getting arrested for violating one of the many facets of the law.

      Reply
  • March 27, 2018 at 7:37 am
    Permalink

    We should also commend the judge in this case, who could clearly see the punitive nature of this type of law and the constitutional basis for rejecting it as an obvious violation of the ex post facto clause. In time, all open-minded judges will do the same.

    Reply
  • March 27, 2018 at 3:53 pm
    Permalink

    Well my plea bargain was 3/1996. I was not required to register at all. There is nothing in my plea bargaining about any of this. So I am hoping that this state gets put in it’s place by a judge saying these laws can go to hell… and I hope Ron Crook and his daughter get taken down as well. If not they will one day have to face God and then we all will be laughing at them when they are cast straight to hell.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *