Bill requires moving companies disclose employed sex offenders
Moving businesses we spoke with say they already have processes in place.
Getting a job at Affordable Transfer Company in Fort Myers involves more than just putting in a job application.
“We start by doing a background check by looking at their criminal history to see if they have any,” said William Jensen.
Jensen says a third-party company even does drug testing to ensure members of his team are “high quality.”
The new Florida law signed days ago would penalize moving companies up to $5,000 if they fail to inform customers that an employee on staff on the customer’s property was convicted of a sexual offense.
“If I was a customer, I’d want to know if someone was coming to my house that was a sexual predator,” Jensen said.
But not everyone completely agrees with this law, saying it could make it tougher for sex offenders to keep a job.
“It’s perfectly understandable that no one would want that to happen, you would not want that kind of thing at all,” said Jane Cooper, “but what’s that person going to do with their life?”
As Cooper helps a friend pack for a move in a south Fort Myers community, she says the new law could be another roadblock for sex offenders looking for work, but she still supports what the law aims to accomplish.
“You make the best of a bad decision, which don’t let them get into your house.”
The new law is one of 16 Governor Rick Scott signed June 9.
It goes into effect October 1.
Yup keep making it harder and harder…I remember when my son was on paper they pressured him all the time to get a job lol what a joke! If it wasn’t for some kind people that saw beyond the label he would be homeless now. They should have just made it where RSOs can’t work for moving companies because it accomplishes the same thing. Idiots!
If this law is so important, what about allowing drug dealers, thieves, burglars. armed home invaders, murderers, etc into one’s home? This law is a fine example of ‘do-gooders’ going after an agenda rather than a problem. The more they can turn away from legitimate work to earn a living and support a family, the more that will have to turn to crime just to survive. Of course, that adds to job security for law enforcement…and I use the term ‘law enforcement’ loosely.
More like re-election enforcement…
I would like to see the wording on this law. Does it apply only to residential moving services or to commercial logistical moving services as well? This law clearly illustrates the purely malevolent intent on the part of the law-makers who crafted and supported this bill to continually disenfranchise a particular sub-set of ex-felons; absent any shred of evidence what-so-ever that a registered “mover” used such employ to endanger a child.
The primary purpose of this law is NOT to protect the public. It’s mission is to keep the RSO from having employment. This is the start of what should be known as “starvation laws”.
This is more “punishment”; this is also another reason why Smith v. Doe must be revisited by SCOTUS.
I like the term Starvation Laws. I think FAC and other supporters could drive home some strong points with this term in our lawsuits and talking points. Let’s push it
It is not a matter if in Florida, but when SEX OFFENDERS WILL HAVE TO WEAR A BIG S on their clothing just like Jews in Nazi Germany had to wear a big J on their clothing
No joke. I’ve been afraid of that for years now. It gives me unbelievable anxiety.
I do believe they had to wear a large Star of David externally on their clothing. The idea of a Scarlet Letter is still the same.
but a painter, electrican, hvac tech, etc… can go in their home what a crock of crap!
Don’t give anyone any ideas!
I was trying to post on that site but cannot figure out how to sign up…I do like to sign in with Google or Facebook. Does anyone know the number of this Bill so I can read the content? Thanks
i meant to say I DO NOT like to sign in via facebook or google
Ok I am hoping that someone more knowledgeable than I can clarify this for me. Here is the link I found to the Bill in question.
http://laws.flrules.org/2017/79
Now if I understand this correctly it says it applies if someone has been convicted under
FL S. 775.21(4)(a)1. That is the Predator law found here
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0775/0775.html
Am I correct in that assessment? And are the moving companies going to know the difference? I am a little concerned because my son works in the moving business (in a fashion)
You are correct. How can we expect the public differentiate between offender/predator when our own news outlets sensationalize the bill to include offender.
I still think its a crappy bill regardless.
In Florida one does not have to be a predator to be designated as one.
Legally you are incorrect. Read the statute and it specifically addresses those who were convicted and designated a Sexual Predator.
We will never get society to understand the myths of sex crimes. When we continue to post headlines and stories that are sensationalistic and factually incorrect.
You are correct in using the term ‘legally”…which of course is not always reflective of reality. I was convicted in Virginia and not designated a predator, yet when I moved to Florida the same conviction caused me to be designated a predator only in Florida. Even my Florida counselor said it was a miscarriage of the law. Nothing could be farther from the truth in my designation.
It does not matter whether they use the person is designated an offender or predator. The problem is that the public is discriminating against our group and not against any other convicted felon!
We are being singled out.
Group? or groups. I think you mean designation (s) . I personally do not belong to a group or groups. If you want to fix something , start with the designation that affects the most. This bill affects very few. The headline states otherwise and is sensationalized.
Until, everyone gets on the same page or off the same list. This will continue.
Group = Sex Offender
There is no such thing as a designation to the public. people don’t care what the bill says. To them we are all sex offenders.
I am the founder of this bill. A known sex offender was sent into my home. He was on felony probation with an ankle monitor which we could not see. He left a note in my 13 year olds panty drawer that said “Call me. I moved you and included his #. When the moving company arrived that day they saw my purse sitting on the counter and asked that I remove all valuables. My most precious valuables are my kids and I had no idea they were in harms way during that 10.5 hour move. It SHOULD have already been a law and since it wasn’t, I made sure it was in the future.
[FAC NOTE: Comment claims lack supporting evidence. Despite this, approving for productive discussion and potential to increase understanding of why this law could feel necessary to some.]
FAC note cites lack of supporting evidence. But commenter’s account strikes me as straightforward. Supporting evidence of what, exactly?
It also seems apparent that the law described here, unpleasant as it is, would have reduced the likelihood of the incident described by the commenter. Right? Perhaps our complaint about this law is that it os not narrowly tailored.
{FAC: Evidence that the event actually occurred e.g. a news article, court filing, etc.}
Understood, I just don’t think we can require alleged victims to substantiate their own firsthand accounts, unless they are causing damage and we have reason to believe they are lying.
Often there simply isn’t a court case or media account to accompany every instance of sexual victimization. Sometimes abuse victims don’t get their day in court, and we simply have to decide on our own whether or not to believe them.
Recall when we were discussing the murder of a Nebraska registrant on this forum, and one of that registrant’s victims came into the discussion and shared her side of that registrant’s story? We (rightly, I think), did not demand additional evidence of her because there was none, he was never prosecuted for it. But many people believed her, and I think she eventually came to understand that FAC and victims in many ways are on the same side.
Perhaps our volunteer moderators were simply skeptical of MOM’s story and that was the reason for requiring citation. Sometimes incidents that can’t be adjudicated, result in complaint to a lawmaker instead. I just want to be careful not to make alleged victims think that we are calling them liars or whatnot. Perhaps I’m in the minority in this view, but more victims need to be part of the discussion.
I think our volunteer moderators do a good job requiring citation for high-stakes but dubious claims about the law, crime statistics, etc and am not trying to discourage that.
@ Jacob:
I for one don’t see any problem with verification of some kind regarding accusations of sexual misconduct. Frankly, I think it should be required. But that’s another argument for another post.
Most registry restrictions are written into law based on isolated incidents. Those that aren’t are based on incidents unlikely to occur in the first place (I call them phantasms). The incident described in MOM’s post is certainly one or the other.
But first and foremost, even assuming MOM’s post is true, what difference did it make if the man she accused was on the registry or not? Would it have been less creepy if he wasn’t registered? Did she verify if he was on the registry before deciding to report the incident or not?
Being Florida, I doubt any PO would allow someone on sex offender parole or probation would be allowed to work for a moving company anyway due to the possibility of contact with minors. But even so, how many sex crimes – against children or otherwise – were committed by moving company laborers on the job or shortly afterward? Not saying it never happened, but is the number so high as to warrant a new law specifically aimed to prevent moving companies from hiring registrants? Because let’s be honest, that’s the real point of this law.
Even if not a complete fabrication, this story doesn’t justify this particular law. MOM’s issue was better addressed to the man’s PO. Personally, I’d be more concerned if the people moving all my stuff were prior thieves or substance abusers. Their recidivism is at least five times higher than registrants.
And I also remember the woman who supported her registrant father’s killer on the FAC forum. I don’t recall if her story of abuse was verified or not (not sure if her father was convicted for that, but don’t think so). But if memory serves, she wasn’t saying all registrants need to be gunned down like her father was.
No one supported their father’s killer on here. She indicated no such support. She only stated what was done to her, in general terms. We did not and could not require citation of what she was sharing.
This is such a niche/outlier of a case it’s hard to believe they wrote a law for it.
A better moving company law would be to address the movers that quote you a price, pick up your stuff, then raise the price and force you to pay or lose your stuff. That happens DAILY and goes unchecked.
I’m not suggesting that employers shouldn’t hire responsibly, but keeping someone out of a manual labor job because they might encounter a minor while working seems like a solution looking for a problem. Should PFR also be excluded from mowing lawns? How about being an electrician? Cooking in a restaurant?
If someone is so dangerous they can’t have a job where there is occasional, incidental contact with minors, that person shouldn’t walk free in society. Existing laws deal with that just fine, and there are plenty of additional restrictions on PFR if on probation or parole.
Rick Scott is a dickhead with ears.
So I have no right to know if a thief is going to steal my stuff he is loading on the truck or that the driver has 3 DUIs so my stuff is unlikely to make it to my new home or if it does survive the crash it will be scarred for life and never the same? Fear fear fear. Just got to spread as much fear as possible to keep everyone from coming together under the government’s thumb.
Waiting with great anticipation when Scott leaves the Governors Mansion. Also, thumbs up to the term “STARVATION LAWS”, thats exactly what it is.
Florida had slowly started going in the right direction until the Scott/Bondi team got in place. Glad to see Bondi finally got married. Until then as Florida’s AG she was living in violation of Florida law.
Capt Charles Munsey Jr. USN (Ret)
Captain, Can you elaborate…
It is against Florida for an unmarried male and female to cohabitate. It’s an old law that in today’s atmosphere is mainly ignored.
First, bills aren’t “founded”, they’re written or proposed. Second, if that story is true, your problem is with an individual, not an entire subclass of citizens. Third, again if the story is true, that individual violated parole by attempting to contact a minor and was sent back to prison anyway, assuming you reported it. Problem solved, no new law needed.
{MODERATED}