Bill proposes to change definition of “day”

Senate bill 1932, filed by Senator Hooper, once again seeks to change the definition of “day”. The language, contained in the definition of “Permanent Residence”, “Temporary Residence” or “Transient Residence” states, “A day includes any part of a calendar day.

This would be disastrous. It would require registrants to register where they are physically present four or more times a year for any part of a day, during a calendar year.

As we did last year, when SB 234 tried to do the same thing, we will be making a significant push to oppose this horrible legislation, which also includes several other very harsh changes.

If you are interested in stepping up and joining a sub-committee of our legislative committee, that will focus on making our voices heard in Tallahassee, please contact membership@floridaactioncommittee.org ASAP! We will need people to make phone calls, send emails and letters and even people who can show up in person in Tallahassee to make sure we kill this horrible bill.

39 thoughts on “Bill proposes to change definition of “day”

    • January 20, 2022

      TS

      Thank YOU!…I Addressed This, Similarly, Years Ago With the FAC Audience, and It Must Have Fallen on Deaf Ears

      Thank You, For, Bringing This Science Back into The Discussion!

      Much Appreciated!

      Reply
    • January 20, 2022

      TS

      Itā€™s sad when Wikipedia gets the definition of day, yet Floridaā€™s legislators havenā€™t a clue. Are they smarter than a 5th grader? My answer is no.

      Reply
  • January 19, 2022

    There are a few things we have going for us on this. First, once sheriff’s offices realize the potential ramifications of defining a day as “any part of a day,” it is unlikely they would support the change because it would just completely overwhelm them even if there is only partial or even minimal compliance. They have already complaining about having to make so many updates to “vehicles owned” (thus the portion of the bill requiring FDLE to allow that to be updated online). Some sheriff’s offices in Florida are already requiring registrants to make most information updates by phone because they’re insufficiently staffed. I’m not even sure the FDLE database could handle so many temporary addresses. Just adding my home address as a place of employment for two separate organizations required an FDLE computer specialist to update my registration record during a 45-minute telephone call because the police couldn’t figure out how to do it (apparently, their system cannot handle more than one employer per address).

    Second, the way the bill is currently drafted, transient offenders (which at least here in Miami-Dade County is a very large group) might have to register as temporary residences every place they remain in more than 3 times a year for any amount of time, but the current system is not designed for handling multiple temporary residences simultaneously. Under this interpretation of the bill, transient offenders could (and often would) establish several new temporary residences on the same day (and perhaps many times per year, even every day), but only one address can appear on a driver’s license or state identification card at a time. Imagine that the same registrant “remains” at a Target, a bus stop, his grandmother’s house, a restaurant, and an auto shop all for the fourth time in a year on the same day. Which of those addresses would he have to put on his driver’s license? And of course the DMV will not issue a DL or ID card with a specific address unless the person has evidence they actually reside there (that’s part of the REAL ID Act). Before I could update my FL DL when I bought my home and moved into it 2013, I had to leave the DMV and go home to retrieve the real estate sales contract before the DMV would actually update the address. They were adamant that just a utility bill with the address was insufficient; I had to provide proof I either owned or rented the place.

    If it’s the intent of this bill to require us to register every place we visit 4 or more times a year, then that needs to be in the bill’s summary and legislative analysis. It would be a clear restraint on travel and be tantamount to community control or being on bond with an electronic monitor (in fact, even community control, which is punishment, does not require this level of reporting or approval of travel). This would be by far the most punitive provision of the entire Florida registration scheme and could jeopardize the constitutionality of the entire law, and we know that legislators care about that. If it’s not the intent of this bill to require the registration of places merely visited and not resided in or at, then the bill needs to be better worded to either remove reference to “part of a day” being a day, or if they really must keep this in the bill for some reason, to reword it so that it is clear that it only applies to actual residences (i.e., where someone actually lives) and not merely places visited or “remained in.” There is just no way county registration offices, several of which are only open a few days per week or by appointment only, could handle registering so many temporary addresses. Given their current staffing levels, in high population counties there would be lines around the block and the registration office would close before getting to half of them.

    And what about the possibility of having multiple permanent addresses? Assuming that “abiding” in a place means just remaining there and not actually residing in it (this is a matter of contention since different dictionaries define the term in different ways, the term is obscure, and may have been originally included because it’s related to the word “abode,” and it is not defined anywhere in the Florida Statutes — and by the way, the same wording “abide, lodges, or resides” is used in the sex offender registration laws of many states), a person could acquire multiple “permanent addresses” on the same day by visiting the same place 4 days a in a row (the gym, worksites, a family member’s home for dinner, and his actual permanent address), but the current system is not designed to handle more than one permanent address at a time. Which one would the sheriff consider the real permanent one?

    This is just me brainstorming for 15 minutes about how it would be impossible for the state to even implement this type of provision, even if compliance were not an issue. This is what happens when bills are drafted in a hurry and without careful thought.

    Reply
    • January 19, 2022

      This is my thoughts exactly to a T. You just articulated and worded it better than I did.

      Reply
    • January 19, 2022

      This thoughtful analysis from RM is more than just ā€˜brainstorming.ā€™ It takes a practical problem-solving approach that many legislators think themselves capable of, and it should be provided to every legislator on the committee

      Reply
  • January 19, 2022

    Unfortunately, mine bounced back as well. Error message as follows:

    No mx record found for domain=floridaactioncommitee.org

    Reply
    • January 19, 2022

      OOPS – typo in the email – please try again.

      Reply
    • January 19, 2022

      Would that also require that you have to get a new drivers license, every time you got your hair cut, grocery shopped, had your car repaired? We Thank God we are out of Florida, my husband spent 15 years on the registry here as a tier 1, then we had to save and fight a court battle against the AG’s office, but we won. what is it they say free at last free at last. We pray for you all.

      Reply
      • January 19, 2022

        Actually, the Florida DHSMV will not issue a driver’s license or identification card with an address unless the applicant provides proof they really reside there, and obviously a person cannot reside (real-word reside, not the Alice in Wonderland definition as contemplated in the bill) in a Wal-Mart, a CVS, the sheriff’s office, or Tire Kingdom. And obviously only one address can appear on a DL or ID card at a time, so there is no way to handle this proposed provision with the current DHSMV and FDLE systems. What would the DHSMV do in the case of multiple temporary residences established on the same day, even assuming they were willing to do so given their strict rules for proving residence? Issue back-to-back-to-back-to-back-to-back ID cards with the string of different addresses, printing and shredding all but the last one? This provision would be logistically impossible to implement by the government.

        Reply
        • January 19, 2022

          Similar comment as I made on RMā€™s observations above, e.g., any lawmaker worth their salt (and there are a few) I think would be interested to know this.

          Reply
        • January 19, 2022

          RM

          This Has Been A Conundrum from Day One…’They’ Just Told Me to Leave as ‘They’ Did not know How to Handle Such..as I had NO PROOF OF ADDRESS….The Lady, There, Gave me Her contact info If I should Have a Problem…Well, That Was Nice, But That is Not Going to Solve the Problem….

          So, in Theory, It is a Set Up To Arrest Us!

          The Whole Registry, Is Just A Big Set Up, WITH NO SOLUTIONS EVER!

          Reply
      • January 19, 2022

        Susan

        Thank you for the prayer, we are going to need it

        Reply
    • January 19, 2022

      CherokeeJack

      All I heard was the rising crime rates and the softness on crime. Umm the registry isnā€™t anywhere near soft itā€™s as rough as steel wool with rusty nails.

      Reply
  • January 19, 2022

    I’ve tried to use this email listed and it keeps kicking it back saying it’s not valid???

    Reply
    • January 19, 2022

      Well. It still doesn’t work for me. Keeps saying it’s not a good email address. I contacted a local FAC memeber to see if I could get through.

      Reply
      • January 19, 2022

        Sorry – there was a typo in the post

        Reply
  • January 19, 2022

    Its another trap. Let’s say you stop at one particular store because its conveniently located on a route you take going from work to home so you have to list it . then they see oh there is a home daycare 2 blocks over ( it doesn’t matter that you didn’t know of the daycare , or that you don’t even go on that street ) but if they have a proximity law your in violation so they can come pick you up whenever they want to. Nope. No punishment here šŸ¤®

    Reply
    • January 19, 2022

      Tim, I think you make a great point! The Self Incrimination Clauses of both the US Constitution and the Florida Constitution should cover this. Maybe the legal eagles involved with FAC can step in on this if the bill even passes.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

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