CALL TO ACTION: Proposed Sex Offender Ordinance in Crestview City, FL
Major Concerns:
On September 11, the Crestview City Council voted unanimously to approve a draft of a sex offender ordinance that would change the residency restrictions from the state’s 1000 feet to 1500 feet within the city of Crestview, Florida.
This ordinance includes school bus stops, schools, parks, playgrounds, child care facilities, and community centers.
The second and final reading will be on September 25 at 6 pm.
There has been no mention of registrants committing sex crimes after moving to Crestview.
Collin Bestor with the Northwest Florida Daily News stated: “According to Council Member Ryan Bullard, this would effectively end new sexual offenders from living within city limits.”
Comments made by Bullard at the September 11 meeting (2:15-4:30): “While we can’t boot those 88 (registrants) out, nor do we want to, well, like we do, but okay. It will prevent any more from living documented (registered) in the city. So, what we are going to do is criminalize them from living in the city which is a great thing to do. Basically, the entire city. If I can prevent just one sex offender from moving into the city, and we can dwindle those numbers and have the chief’s people go after them, I am pretty much for it.”
If the registrant is renting and lives within the banishment zone, then he/she will have to find a new location to live.
PLEASE Do the Following:
Contact the Crestview City Council Members and Mayor letting them know that you OPPOSE this ordinance that would expand the residency restrictions to 1500 feet.
Ask family members and friends to contact the council members to OPPOSE this ordinance.
Try to personalize your communications.
Finally, continue to be courteous in your communications with policy makers as they are more likely to listen to us if they do not feel under attack.
Talking Points:
Why is Crestview considering this proposed ordinance when there has not been a problem with people on the registry committing new sex offenses? Even the police chief has not mentioned a problem with new sex offenses.
Florida Statute 775.215 prohibits registered sex offenders who have been convicted of certain sexual crimes from living within 1000 feet of a school, child care facility, park, or playground. The Crestview ordinance would add to this list school bus stops and community centers. These additional two categories go beyond what the state requires, thereby being more difficult to defend in a lawsuit with the bus stops being the most punitive part. Bus stops can be moved from one location to another, making frequent changes to the banishment zones/map.
If you live in Florida but not Okaloosa County, you could mention that you are opposed to increasing the residency restrictions as you do not want to see such a punitive measure spread to your county.
If you do not live in Florida, you could mention that you feel extremely uncomfortable traveling to a state that passes laws NOT based on empirically-validated research, but rather passes laws “just because they can.”
Crestview City is in Okaloosa County where many tourists travel every year to Destin and Fort Walton Beach to enjoy the gulf. You would never feel comfortable vacationing in a county where some of its citizens are treated inhumanely and forced into homelessness where, as Councilor Bullard stated, “If I can prevent just one sex offender from moving into the city, and we can dwindle those numbers and have the chief’s people go after them, I am pretty much for it.” Is Okaloosa going to the level of third world countries? Is the Crestview Council going for complete banishment?
ALL research shows that residency restrictions have had no effect on sexual recidivism rates. County ordinances should be based on empirically-validated research.
This past June of 2023, Volusia County Council Members looked at drafting an ordinance that would have expanded the residency restrictions to 1500 feet in the unincorporated part of the county. After hearing from many Florida citizens and looking at the research, the council decided NOT to increase their residency restrictions to 1500 feet.
The 1,500 feet will be measured from the outermost boundaries of schools, etc., to the outermost boundaries of one’s residence. It will be a linear (straight line) measure. Fifteen hundred feet is the equivalent of five adjacent football fields laid end to end.
Released murderers, perpetrators of domestic violence (whose actions are at times more harmful to a child than certain sex offense cases would be), violent gang leaders, armed robbers, etc., are allowed to live anywhere, including next to a school.
Residency restrictions only mandate where you must be located between 10:00 pm and 6:00 am each day. These are times when children are not at school, not at a day care facility, not any of the forbidden zones. They are at home with their families. How is this going to keep children safer?
The sexual recidivism rate for people with a past sex offense is lower than that for all other crimes, except for murder.
When threatened with legal challenges, Gainesville and Palm Beach County rolled back their 2500-foot residency restrictions to the state’s 1000 ft, and there has NOT been an increase in sex offenses because of the rollback. The Gainesville county attorney said that a lawsuit would be easier to defend against if Gainesville stuck with the state’s 1000-foot restriction.
In at least 93% of sex offenses committed against minors, the child knows the perpetrator (family member, school staff, coaching staff, church staff, etc.), debunking the myth of “stranger danger.”
Research also shows that at least 90% of FUTURE sex offenses will be committed by people NOT on the registry. How is Crestview going to be monitoring these people who will be the predominant perpetrators in the future, while using so many resources to monitor registrants who are highly unlikely to sexually re-offend?
Expanding the residency restrictions increases the homeless population. Research shows that being homeless makes it more difficult for people released from prison to reintegrate back into society successfully as law-abiding citizens, thereby increasing their chances of committing an offense of any type. Such instability makes society less safe.
Residency restrictions have proven to be ineffective and punitive to people on the registry along with their family members; education is the key to prevention. Preventative programs should be offered in the Crestview City schools, colleges, workplaces, and other public venues to stop the cycle of abuse, raise awareness of the consequences, identify support resources, and ultimately restore families.
Recommend that the council members and mayor google the effectiveness of residency restrictions.
FLORIDA ACTION COMMITTEE WILL BE SENDING INFORMATION TO THE COUNCIL MEMBERS AND MAYOR. THIS INFORMATION THAT WILL BE MAILED THROUGH THE U.S. MAIL ALONG WITH MANY CONTACTS FROM OUR MEMBERS AND THEIR FAMILIES/FRIENDS HAS PROVEN TO BE EFFECTIVE IN OTHER SITUATIONS: 2023 FLORIDA LEGISLATIVE SESSION AND VOLUSIA COUNTY.
Contact Information for council members and mayor:
Mayor JB Whitten
850-682-1560 ext 252
Joe Blocker
850-306-3669
joeblocker@cityofcrestview.org
Andrew Rencich
No phone number given
Andrew.rencich@cityofcrestview.org
Cynthia Brown
850-461-3529
Douglas Capps
No phone number given
Ryan Bullard
No phone number given
City Hall
198 North Wilson Street
Crestview, Florida 32536
850-682-1560
Research showing residency restrictions are ineffective:
Why Kansas does not have residency restrictions: Housing restrictions appear to be based largely on myths…Research does not support these myths (#1). The sex offender residency restriction was a very well-intentioned effort to keep the children of our communities safe from sex offenders. It has, however, had unintended consequences that effectively decrease community safety (#10). (Kansas Department of Corrections, “Sex Offender Housing Restrictions”) https://www.doc.ks.gov/publications/CFS/sex-offender-housing-restrictions
Why Maryland does not have residency restrictions – because information put out by other states has shown that residency restrictions do not help to prevent sexual offenses from occurring because the victims and the offenders, in most situations, know each other. Some states, such as Iowa and Florida, have found that residency restrictions can make it very difficult to track sex offenders who have become homeless. (Maryland Department of Public Safety & Correctional Services, “Sex Offender Registry FAQs,” see question 15) https://www.dpscs.state.md.us/onlineservs/sor/frequently_asked_questions.shtml
In 2017, the Illinois Task Force reported that research showed that residency restrictions lead neither to reductions in sexual crime nor recidivism. (Illinois December 2017 Sex Offenses & Sex Offender Registration Task Force Final Report, page iv) http://www.icjia.state.il.us/assets/articles/SOTF_report_final_12292017.pdf
“There is no research to support residence restrictions as effective in reducing sexual recidivism. The Minnesota Department of Corrections concluded in one study that ‘during the past 16 years, not one sex offender released from a Minnesota Correctional Facility has been re-incarcerated for a sex offense in which he made contact with a juvenile victim near a school, park, or daycare center close to his home.’” (“Residency Restrictions for Sexual Offenders in Minnesota: False Perceptions for Community Safety”, Richard Weinberger, 2016) https://www.ci.new-prague.mn.us/vertical/sites/%7BAD7ECB62-2C5E-4BA0-8F19-1426026AFA3E%7D/uploads/MnATSA-Residency-Restrictions-2016.pdf
In 2018, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, sex offender residency restrictions were declared unconstitutional. https://floridaactioncommittee.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/OrderGrantingDefsMotiontoDismiss.pdf
“Residency restrictions have not accomplished the goals that politicians have promised they would but have caused collateral consequences that can actually make society worse off.” (Boston College Journal of Law & Social Justice, “No Place to Call Home: Rethinking Residency Restrictions for Sex Offenders”, Gina Puls) https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1102&context=jlsj
“Residency restrictions should be abolished.” (Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, Levenson, Leibowitz, and Grady, 2016, “Grand Challenges: Social Justice and the Need for Evidence-Based Sex Offender Registry Reform”, page 22) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304990286_Grand_Challenges_Social_Justice_and_the_Need_for_Evidence-based_Sex_Offender_Registry_Reform)
From the African American Studies Program at the University of South Carolina, “policymakers need to rethink…residency restriction laws and change them to reflect empirical evidence based on the nature of sexual offending…that change could bring about meaningful reductions in homelessness, associated with being a registered sex offender.” (University of South Carolina African American Studies Program, “Sex Offender Residence Restrictions and Homelessness”) https://sc.edu/study/colleges_schools/artsandsciences/african_american_studies/about/news/2019/offender.php Actual Study: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0887403419862334
In Broward County, 27.6% of registrants are homeless, and in Miami-Dade, 28.2% are homeless, with residency restrictions being the main obstacle in finding stable housing. ( Sex Offender Registration and Monitoring Triennial Review – 2021, pages 25-26)
In Jacksonville, Florida, arrest histories were used “to assess the effects of a recently expanded municipal 2,500-foot residence restriction ordinance on sex crimes and sex offense recidivism…No significant differences in city wide sex crimes or recidivist sex crimes were found…The residence restriction did not achieve its intended goal of reducing recidivism.” (Crimes and Delinquency, “Effectiveness of Residence Restrictions in Preventing sex offense Recidivism,” , Matt R. Nobles, Jill S. Levenson, Tash J. Youstin, 2012) https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0011128712449230
“…legislators have passed regulatory laws aimed at reducing recidivism among convicted sexual offenders. These policies…may contribute to an increasing risk for recidivism. In fact, evidence on the effectiveness of these laws suggests that they may not prevent recidivism or sexual violence and result in more harm than good.” (National Library of Medicine, “Sexual Offender Laws and Prevention of Sexual Violence or Recidivism,” Kelly K. Bonnar-Kidd, 2019) https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2820068/
Florida probation and parole officers surveyed indicated “that these officers believe that these (residency) restrictions as applied in Florida, give the public a false sense of security…” (Florida Department of Law Enforcement, “Sex Offender Residency Restrictions and Other Sex Offender Management Strategies: The Probation Officer Perspective in Florida,” A. L. Datz) https://www.fdle.state.fl.us/FCJEI/Programs/SLP/Documents/Full-Text/Datz-Amy-Research-paper.aspx
Research showing most future sex crimes are committed by people NOT on the registry:
“The majority of empirical studies indicate that those convicted of a sexual offense have no previous sexual offense on their record, and in one instance over 95% of all sexual offense arrests were committed by first-time offenders (Hepburn &Griffin, 2002; Sandler et al, 2008).” See Discussion on page 20. (Journal of Experimental Criminology, Kristen M. Zgoba, Meghan M. Mitchell, 2021, “The effectiveness of Sex Offender Registration and Notification: A meta-analysis of 25 years of findings?”) The effectiveness of Sex Offender Registration and Notification: A meta-analysis of 25 years of findings (floridaactioncommittee.org)
“…most new sexually-based crimes are committed by someone not on the registry. In Ohio in 1999, 92% of those convicted of a sex offense against a child and 93% of those convicted of a sex offense against a teenager were first-time offenders. Most recently, Sandler et al., in their analysis of the effectiveness of Megan’s Law in New York, reported that 96% of all new arrests for sexual crimes occurred among those without previous sexual crime convictions.” (National Library of Medicine, “Sexual Offender Laws and Prevention of Sexual Violence or Recidivism”, Kelly K. Bonnar-Kidd, PhD, 2010) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2820068/:
“Analyses…showed that over 95% of all sexual offense arrests were committed by first-time sex offenders, casting doubt on the ability of laws that target repeat offenders to meaningfully reduce sexual offending.” (“Does a Watched Pot Boil? A Time-Series Analysis of New York State’s Sex Offender Registration and Notification Law”, Jeffrey C. Sandler, Naomi J. Freeman, Kelly Michael Socia, 2008) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232505213_Does_a_Watched_Pot_Boil_A_Time-Series_Analysis_of_New_York_State’s_Sex_Offender_Registration_and_Notification_Law
“Almost all (95%) of sex crimes are committed by someone who would not be on the sex offender registry.” (Psychology Today, “Sex Offender Registries”, Elizabeth Jeglic, Ph.D., 2019) https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/protecting-children-sexual-abuse/201908/sex-offender-registries
Research showing that minors know their perpetrators approximately 93% of the time, i.e., they are not strangers:
Ninety-three percent of child victims know their perpetrator. (Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network, RAINN, “Children and Teens: Statistics”) https://www.rainn.org/statistics/children-and-teens
More than 9 out of 10 sexual assaults are committed by someone known to the victim. (Bureau of Justice Statistics Study, 2021) https://bjs.ojp.gov/nibrs/reports/sarble/sarble19
Under “Discussion”: “As upwards of ninety percent of victims and offenders know and prey on one another, we need to confront the uncomfortable truth that those who commit sexual offenses are usually not strangers.” (“The Effectiveness of Sex Offender Registration and Notification: A meta-analysis of 25 years of findings”, Kristen Zgoba and Meghan Mitchell, 2021) The effectiveness of Sex Offender Registration and Notification: A meta-analysis of 25 years of findings (floridaactioncommittee.org)
” Concerning kidnapping and child sex trafficking, ‘stranger danger’ is usually not a factor in the equation. Kids are virtually never grabbed off the street and pulled into an unmarked van.” (SocialMiami.com, “Senator Lauren Book: Masks Do Not Increase Kidnapping Risk”, Lauren Book) https://socialmiami.com/senator-lauren-book-masks-do-not-increase-kidnapping-risk-for-children/
Sexual recidivism rates for people with a past sex offense:
American Law Institute: In June of 2021 the American Law Institute (ALI), probably the most honored non-governmental law reform organization in the country, which includes top federal appeals judges, along with law professors and other legal experts, proposed major changes to the state sex offense registries. One reason cited was that research shows a relatively low sexual recidivism rate after being caught and serving time in prison. (See page 484 of the report.)
Also on page 484, footnote 23 of the ALI report is found: “as few as 5.3% [of sex offenders] re-offend within three years, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, as opposed to rates in the 65% to 80% range for drug offenders and thieves.” (Stuart A. Scheingold et al., Sexual Violence, Victim Advocacy, and Republican Criminology: Washington State’s Community Protection Act (1994), 28 LAW & SOC’Y REV. 729, 743)
Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from State Prison: 9-Year Follow-Up (2005-14): The U. S. Department of Justice May of 2019 Recidivism Report found that released inmates in 30 states, whose most serious offense was rape or sexual assault, were arrested at a rate of 7.7% for rape or sexual assault over the 9-year period from 2005 to 2014. That means that 92.3% did NOT re-offend. This study only considered the most violent of sex crimes. When all sexual offenses are included, the rate is lower.
Karl Hanson, Connecticut’s One Standard of Justice January 2021 Webinar: “Sex Offender Recidivism Risk Not What You Think”, https://youtu.be/Hnf3bmoPLx4 – start at 19 minutes: Karl Hanson, one of the leading researchers in the field of risk assessment and treatment for people who have committed a sex offense, compiled data from many different research studies on re-offense rates for people on the sex offense registry and found the following to be true: The lifetime sexual re-offense rate is anywhere from 10% to 30%, depending on which study you use, with the larger studies having the lower rates.
I think the city should be forced to put up permanent markers on sidewalks, curbs, street signs, fire hydrants and any other fixes object as a boundary of the designated distance. In a couple of years when this horse poop is thrown on the trash heap of stupid ideas, these permanent markers will serve to remind everyone of the stupidity!
The registry would only consist of a person’s name and address if it was truly civil in nature as claimed. Every requirement beyond that is punishment. Just listen to what these people state the purpose of their expanded restriction is. It’s not to reduce crime, it is to reduce the number of registrants living in the city to zero. How the hell is that not punishment.
Comments made by Bullard at the September 11 meeting (2:15-4:30): “While we can’t boot those 88 (registrants) out, nor do we want to, well, like we do, but okay. It will prevent any more from living documented (registered) in the city. So, what we are going to do is criminalize them from living in the city which is a great thing to do. Basically, the entire city. If I can prevent just one sex offender from moving into the city, and we can dwindle those numbers and have the chief’s people go after them, I am pretty much for it.”
So, he wants to weaponize the city police force and have them form basically a lynch mob of officers to “dwindle those numbers (of registrants already living in the city? ). Is Mr. Bullard proposing a hate crime or hate crimes here? It sounds like it to me. If these are actually his words, could he be investigated for hate speech and inciting a hate crime?
It starts by the police department going door to door hanging flyings with made up information. Some who looked at porn will have a flyer printed up saying a “Violent, habitual, dangerous sexual pervert lives near you so please take precautionary actions”.
Harassment of someone like myself whose crime was 32 years, turns into not being able to live in peace. I had people from next door go and hang flyers on all my neighbors doors.
I’m saying that it sounds like he wants to attack and/or harass law abiding registrants using the police force in order to get them out. I’m sure that is a crime. He has made a public statement that this is his intent. I think a call to the states attorney office could be in order. They should investigate his actions to determine if he is committing or planning a crime. Said investigation should be enough to get the rest of the council of of his coat tails lest they get wrapped up in his shenanigans.
It sounds like Bullard is doing our work for us. By his comments he is proving that this is a punitive measure and that he wants to punish RSO. Rather than protecting his community he is opening it up for multiple civil rights lawsuits. He is asking the Chief of Police and the LEO there to harass the RSO which as we all know is in direct violation of the registry law of this State. Using the Registry to harass or attack RSO is specifically forbidden and I believe if memory serves me correct a misdemeanor in the first degree. So If the city police are weaponized then they will be guilty of such.
So what counties are doing as they did in Martin county because St. Lucie County in Palm Beach County had a 2500 foot rule Martin County decided to go to the county commission the sheriff and request that this county increase it to 2500 feet because people were moving here this only pie place I could find a place to live so that’s exactly what they’re doing up there and in Crestview it says it’s some point the state needs to say you can’t increase the penalty and make a ordinance that makes a person commit a crime and again the ex post facto deal is definitely an play
It appears to me the whole problem stems from the adoption of the 1000 ft. Rule to begin with . That in itself is unconstitutional and should never have been allowed. It just opened the door to other unconstitutional and hate filled infringements.
DavidM:
Michigan’s 1,000 foot rule was found unconstitutional and was removed from the books. Now registrants can even live across the street from a school, park, etc. in Michigan. They can even work in an elementary school in Michigan. I don’t believe they would ever be hired by a school, but I bet some have worked in schools as private contractors doing carpentry work, etc. What needs to be done is registrants find out why Michigan’s 1,000 foot rule was found to be unconstitutional and try to replicate it in their own state.
FAC has mailed 14 pages of information to the mayor and council members of Crestview. Now we need support from our members in contacting these same people to OPPOSE this ordinance. We only have until this Monday, September 25, 6 pm before the second reading and final vote.
FAC cannot do all of this alone. We also need support from our members.
As tough as this may sound, people are just going to have to stand their ground and not move.
Rosa Parks decided not to get up and move from her seat. She was ultimately vindicated.
Maybe somebody needs to take a stand and say I will not move.
Note: You will be arrested. But the state is now in a position that it will have to defend the law as constitutional in order to garner a conviction. You probably wont win in the lower courts. It’s probably going to look darkest before the dawn. They will “punt” this issue. Which I would think is good. I want the upper courts to set precedent that residency restrictions are unconstitutional.
Do you 100%, truly believe this is unconstitutional?
Then I suggest someone does take a stand. Let themselves be arrested. Stand your ground on your constitutional belief that the residency restriction is wrong.
Vet yourself. Vet yourself to see if you’re in a position to take on such a challenge.
We as a community (registered citizens on FAC) MUST take on the task to put our money together and hire a worthy attorney to defend this person. No excuses of why you can’t pay your part to defend. The cost of an attorney is a lot easier when numerous people are dividing the costs.
I propose we have a special meeting or call for this very action I am proposing.
Can we find someone who would go through this? And who are all the people that are going to put up money for the cost of this?
Because once this residency restriction is solved, it solved once, and for all. No more laws will be written about this garbage.
There is ONE excuse actually. Some cases can take more than a decade and some of them are not heard at all or kicked back to a lower court who sits on it until the Messiah returns judge us.
Case in point, the Ex Post Facto case that has been going on for years. When you are losing your house or your freedom, you do not have years to wait. Just saying. Some of us are trying to lay low so we can win our own case, then be more able to help others once the cloud is off our heads.
I disagree.
The Ex Post Facto case is a filed lawsuit. Initiated by registered citizens. To present the claim that, “Registration is punishment”.
I’m not proposing we initiate a lawsuit. What I am proposing is responding to an arrest, standing your ground and stating your claim: “Residency restrictions are unconstitutional”
The court(s) are going to handle the arrest case very differently than the Ex Post Facto case. They are not the same cases.
Once an arrest has been made and somebody actually stands up for their rights, the courts have no choice but to solve the matter of residency restrictions once and for all.
If you suspect that it may take years or decades to resolve, the State still has to garner a conviction to boot that person out of their home.
But let’s ask an attorney on our two views or action plans: Stay Low or Say No?
That’s why I proposed a special meeting on this subject.
I’ve asked people to vet themselves. I’m not volunteering you. Many of us are trying to stay low.
This is a choice someone may have to make though.
It may solve the residency restrictions problem a lot faster than constantly trying to go through some back channels.
Maybe somebody’s in a position where they have nothing else to lose.
If we were fortunate to have such a person to take on that challenge, I would say let’s talk about this.
Gaslighted:
I’ve been saying for years that the best way to challenge these laws was for people on the registry to take a stand and get arrested. The problem is that no one has the courage to defy these laws. They comply with these unconstitutional laws rather than confront them.
You are correct. I am one of them.
I got a response back from Douglas Capps he wanted to know my city?
His response
Thanks for your concern for Crestview.
But as you don’t live here and are not a constituent, please stick to the local politics of your area and not try to interfere in mine.
You do you, we will take care of Crestview.
Doug Capps
City Councilmember
City of Crestview
cappsd@cityofcrestview.org
850-582-2170
http://www.cityofcrestview.org
My original email Dear Council Leader
I am writing to you to oppose the 1950 ordinance that would increase residency restrictions to 1500 feet of sex offenders and predators.
In your proposed new ordinance has they been a rash of new crime committed by people on the sex offender registry? I would thank not other wise they surely would of mention that in the meeting, right? Has there been an uptick in sex offender violations? If they truly did research you would have found out people who committed a sexual offense have a recidivism rate of 7.7 % arrested for rape or sexual assaults, so 92.3 % did not reoffended over a 9-year period. (U.S. Department of Justice, May 2019: Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from State Prison 9 Year Follow-up 2005-2014). Almost 95 % of sex crimes are committed by someone who would not be on the sex offender registry (Psychology Today, “Sex Offender Registries, Elizabeth Jeglic Ph.D.,2019). Also 93% of the time the child victim knows their perpetrator. (Rape, Abuse, &Incest National Network, RAINN, “Children and Teens: Statistics”)
All this new law will do will prove that the registry is punishment. In Smith vs Doe which the registry has been upheld on constitutional grounds said that the registrants were free to work and live as he pleased. Eventually with ordinance such as these it will force the courts hand soon.
The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly- Abraham Lincoln.
Please see the reply from from Mr. Doug Capps:
“Thanks for your concern for Crestview.
But as you don’t live here and are not a constituent, please stick to the local politics of your area and not try to interfere in mine.
You do you, we will take care of Crestview.”
Here’s the reply I received…Imagine him saying this to Hitler 🙂 Idiot!
Ms. Hambrick,
Thanks for your concern for Crestview.
But as you don’t live here and are not a constituent, please stick to the local politics of your area and not try to interfere in mine.
You do you, we will take care of Crestview.
Doug Capps
City Councilmember
City of Crestview
These small towns do not like publicity and are often covering something up. They do not like the news or investigators coming in because they know they are not respecting the constitution and rights of its citizens.
They were warned so let’s see when someone files a lawsuit against this small city that has around 27 thousand citizens according to the 2020 census.
They are very likely in violation of Florida’s Sunshine Laws. It’s just a matter of catching them speaking about community business in private (ie out of the sunshine). Those are misdemeanor counts and each commissioner who violates the law can be prosecuted.
No kidding. And of course he sees making people homeless as “politics”. Just pawns in his sick game of bringing harm to people. And this from a Veteran makes it even worse.
This is why you check these people out. We found out that a psychologists in Minnesota was committing “sex offenders” to civil commitment when he had more allegations of sexual misconduct made against him than many of the people he had committed. His name is Dr. James M. Alsdurf and you can download all of the complaints made against him on the State of Minnesota’s Board of Psychology website.
You can read the article at vocalhome.blogspot.com.
As I told Mr. Capps in my letter I mailed to him, I do not live in his county, but these ineffective residency laws are spreading like a cancer and I do NOT want to see them spread to my county. It needs to be nipped in the bud now.
I’m one of the 88 that live in Crestview. I have a mortgage on a home that I own. I just want to take care of my wife till I die.
The 88 of us need to band together, We need legal representation to help let Crestview know we wont stand for any crap from the local police,”While I don’t believe they will go door to door with fliers, i do believe that the local police will harrass us, I have akready had it happen to me.
As you all can see, the city counsel has told you to mind your own business if you don’t live in Crestview. They have already made up their minds to vote this into city law. The only thing that remains is to remind the counsel and the police, a court battle will ensue when the 88 are being picked off one by one,
I don’t know who the 87 others are, I have kept to myself for the time I have lived here, I would appreciate FAC reaching out all of us in the city so we can speak to one another.
This is not a joke, If we don’t act now, who knows what’s next, I hope the others in my city will respond,
Archie
I will keep you and the others there in my prayers.
Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes.
Ephesians 6:11
I do hope you write the council. I agree the police are in on it. The police chief talked to the guy in this video between the 1st and 2nd meeting his view totally changed. Worth the watch
https://www.cityofcrestview.org/546/Agendas-Minutes
Here is the meeting before this one that Took Place August 28th 2023 time 1:19 hour mark to 1:36 hour mark click on video on the itinerary.
I did write Ryan Bullard. He ignored me and/or was too afraid to answer. What they are doing is actionable. Howeverer, we will need a civil attorney to help. Those of 88 need to pool our money to hire an attorney.
Like I said before, these people are not joking.
Thank you for your willingness to fight this. This is not over.
Please try to show up at the Monday (Sept. 25) 6 pm meeting to speak. We are trying to get others to come, too.
I’ll be there.
Thank you! Thank you!
I don’t really know what to say to them. I am pretty sure they have already made their minds up. If you could email me what you think would be beneficial. Don’t post it here. I am sure they are reading this post. You have my email address.
Speak from the heart and from personal experience. God bless. Good luck.
Will do.
@Archie
Remember Archie, not all Heroes wear capes.
I will be praying for all of you. When one of us falls to these ordinances, we all feel it.
Please go to the Crestview meeting on Monday 9/25/23 at 6pm and voice your concerns directly to them! Take as many people as you can along with you! If you want this to stop now, we must all take a stand in the districts that we live in to have any true impact on City Councils.
“Banishment zone.”
And THEY are living in the twilight zone.
That tells you everything you need to know about their hate, spite and ignorance.
They’re attempting to create the illusion of a “safety buffer” where children congregate. How is this not a form of gentrification? Expect with infrastructure, we’re being treated something to nuisance like pests, wildlife and stray dogs. Just like how they try to keep the pigeons away from public buildings by playing ultrasonic deterrents
We’re being mistreated and devalued and the public is cheering them on. How is telling people where they can live humane?
Would this not be a good case to try? They want to force the remaning citizens to “shelter in place” and forbidd any new registrant from moving into the city. I know its not precedent but has anyone looked at these cases to see if they could be useful,https://casetext.com/case/means-v-state-61its a missippi case. Or maybe even we can attack a Georiga Case where a defendant was banishment from a 7 county aera in Georiga. https://casetext.com/case/state-v-collett-12 The court stated:
The defendant in the present case has made only a general attack on the present sentence as being illegal, contending it is per se violative of public policy. There has been no showing in this case that the imposed condition to remain outside the seven specified counties for the period of the sentence (12 months) is unreasonable or otherwise fails to be a logical relationship to the rehabilitative scheme of the sentence pronounced for this drug crime. . . .
seems banishment was upheld in Georiga on temporary time frame, also it fit a rehabilitative scheme here its strickly to keep people in place or out of this community. However ours is a future banishment and a lifetime in effect.
Surely we should challange this banishment law
Well, looks like it time for a court fight. We need to see the legal language next, and go from there. The cities lawyer said there are about 60 cities that have large ordnance agents sex offenders. Crestview lawyer this ordnance should hold up in court.
That did not make sence. What I ment to say was, the Crestview attorney said there are about cities that are going to a larger banishment zone (although he did not use the word banashment). He believes the new ordnance will hold up. The only way we can stop it is to fight it. My wife and I stand ready to do what we can here in Crestview.
If anyone wants to see the meeting
https://www.cityofcrestview.org/546/Agendas-Minutes
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/381/437.html
(a) The Bill of Attainder Clause, Art. I, § 9, cl. 3, was intended to implement the separation of powers among the three branches of the Government by guarding against the legislative exercise of judicial power. Pp. 381 U. S. 441-446.
(b) The Bill of Attainder Clause is to be liberally construed in the light of its purpose to prevent legislative punishment of designated persons or groups. Cummins v. Missouri, 4 Wall. 277; Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333; United States v. Lovett, 328 U. S. 303. Pp. 381 U. S. 447-449.
f) A statute which inflicts its deprivation upon named or described persons or groups constitutes a bill of attainder whether its aim is retributive, punishing past acts, or preventive, discouraging future conduct. In America Communications Ass’n v. Douds, 339 U. S. 382, where the Court upheld § 9(h) of the National
Page 381 U. S. 438
James Madison wrote:
“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”
Good article glad you shared
It fits to a T what there doing to us and why a Bill of retainer might be a good thing to look into seeing that is is the new trend putting more burdens upon us based on nothing but the need to feel safe
A statute which inflicts its deprivation upon named or described persons or groups constitutes a bill of attainder whether its aim is retributive, punishing past acts, or preventive, discouraging future conduct. In America Communications Ass’n v. Douds, 339 U. S. 382, where the Court upheld § 9(h) of the National
Page 381 U. S. 438
It’s discouraging future conduct by preventing us from moving there making it essentially a no go zone or a banishment zone. Their stated goal was to make it uninhabitable for Registrants that makes us the targeted sub class instead of the socialist an example. Also “described persons“ makes it blatantly clear that they describe these laws to affect us, and only us thereby singling us out should be more reason of a bill retainer.
@Eugene
All of us have found busloads of evidence that the registry is punishment. The sad fact of the matter is, until the courts pull their heads out of the sand and their fingers out of their ears while humming la la la, we cannot move the mountain and inch.
Even the judges who want to find for us, they seem unwilling to get a lashing from their peers as labeled a sex offender advocate.
They need to take a fresh look at the definition of justice and fairness in the law.
Couldn’t this new law help us?https://casetext.com/statute/florida-statutes/title-vi-civil-practice-and-procedure/chapter-57-court-costs/section-57112-effective-1012023-attorney-fees-and-costs-and-damages-arbitrary-unreasonable-or-expressly-preempted-local-ordinances