Changes made to St. Johns County sex offender ordinances
Because of the courage of some individuals on the sex offender registry in Jacksonville and the help of a great attorney, Duval County is no longer requiring the unconstitutional posting of the Halloween signs. At least four other counties have also made changes to their ordinances concerning the posting of these signs. Even though the changes are not perfect, they are an improvement.
On September 19, 2023, St. Johns County followed suit by dropping their signage language, but unfortunately made some other changes to their ordinances which are not for the better.
Florida Action Committee was not aware that St. Johns County was proposing some of the changes it made in their ordinances. Had we known, we would have fought the bad ones. Please notify us at info@floridaactioncommitte.org if you are aware of any proposed sex offender ordinances or changes in them that are not for the better. It is easier to fight these insane ordinances before they are passed rather than after they are passed.
Following the example of our three members in Hernando County, we are urging people in St. Johns County to contact the county commissioner for their district, asking either for an in-person, private office visit with them, or a phone call. Explain to your commissioner the negative impacts that will now be made to your life because of the changes they have made. These commissioners probably have no idea the hardships they have now placed on the many law-abiding citizens of their county. All they are thinking about is “saving that one child,” for which these changes are not going to be the answer.
It would be helpful if some of our members would keep an eye out for any future ordinances that we need to fight against. One suggested site is: floridapublicnotices.com.
Anyone know the ordinance number? Link is to unsigned draft.
https://pontevedrarecorder.com/stories/st-johns-county-strengthens-protections-from-sexual-offenders-predators,66190#:~:text=St.%20Johns%20County%20Ordinance%20No.%202009%2D36%20makes%20it,areas%2C%20public%20or%20private%20playgrounds%2C
I imagine it’s still 36 its just revised, correct?
For counties that have long had similar ordinances (Brevard, Seminole), do we know whether any arrests have ever been made?
Referring to the 1,000’ rule. Was anyone arrested (or even questioned) simply because they were present on a property whose line was < 1,000’ from the line of a prohibited property?
Or, for that matter, 300’, if we’re referring to Clay or (until now) St Johns.
I can only think of one, several years ago, Brevard arrest of registrant dining at BK opposite the highway from athletic club tennis courts (charges dropped).
Any others?
Not referring, of course, to loitering in the presence of gatherings of children, or trespassing on school property, those are of course more risky.
https://www.pnj.com/story/news/crime/2017/06/16/sex-offender-arrested-allegedly-loitering-near-pace-park/405155001/
It’s hard to find a case I think you’re better off looking up loitering just maybe you have better finding somebody has been arrested for loitering and his a Registrant
Maybe Florida supreme court decision regarding banishment, which this is
“Another banishment case was State Ex Rel. Baldwin v. Alsbury, 223 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 1969). In 1964, a Florida court indefinitely suspended a sentence of sixty days for shoplifting in return for a defendant’s promise to stay out of town. When the defendant was found to have returned to town in 1969, the maximum imprisonment for the shoplifting offense (ninety days) had expired, and the Florida Supreme Court ruled that the sentence could not be reinstated.”
So it seems banishment is only technically legal during probation the registry is not probation. It’s a civil matter so banishment should not apply to us, but it is so maybe that case could be reference.
I don’t know if this will be a matter to argue, but Georgia allows Banishment. I’m not sure about Alabama. It seem like you need 11th circuit to clarify the matter but the Supreme Court of United States has said banishment is illegal. When you’re constantly expanding the geographical proximity locations that amounts to banishment in my opinion, hopefully the spring court agrees to hear Clemens versus Florida later next month.
I’m rereading the CLEMENTS vs 11th circuit case. And on page 10-11
I quote “In Wales v. Whitney, 114 U.S. 564 (1885), the Supreme Court addressed the question of custody in a habeas corpus case arising out of a pending court-martial proceeding. The petitioner, the medical director (and former surgeon general) of the navy, was served with an order of the secretary of the navy which (1) in- formed him that he was to be tried by a court-martial, (2) told him that he was “placed under arrest,” and (3) instructed him to “con- fine [him]self to the limits” of Washington, D.C. See id. at 566. The petitioner—who was not physically detained—sought habeas corpus relief with respect to the court-martial, but the Supreme Court ruled that he was not in custody and could not avail himself of the writ. First, he was “under no physical restraint” and was able to “walk[ ] the streets of Washington with no one to hinder his movements[.]” Id. at 569. … The Supreme Court explained that “[s]omething more than moral restraint is necessary to make a case for habeas corpus. There must be actual confinement or the present means of enforc- ing it.” Id. at 571-72
Seems if we can get a plaintiff in St. John’s county it would make a good habeas corpus case in regards to custody or movement is being hindered. If the Supreme Court doesn’t hear the case or give a strong rebuke about residency restrictions since he didn’t bring it up.