Florida's 2nd DCA comments on the "difficult situation" residency restrictions created.

The following are excerpts from a 2nd DCA case that was decided today in Alvarado v. Florida. We believe it demonstrates Courts’ recognition that Sex Offender Residency Restrictions are a problem the legislature needs to address.

“The dilemma facing sexual predators and offenders upon their release from prison was largely created by the legislature, albeit enhanced by county ordinances;and a solution must therefore lie with the legislature.

“Given the population densities in most Florida counties, this geographic radius frequently limits sexual offenders and predators to living in either the most commercial urban core or invery rural areas. Many are forced to reside on the streets, which, ironically enough,exposes a greater segment of society to such offenders. The alternative of living “in the woods” results in dim prospects for a job or the social services that might be needed to reintegrate as a productive member of society. The cycle of reoffending becomes higher for these individuals than for the “average” probationer

“[Appellant] was told that the only living option within the entirety of Polk County for a sexual predator with no income was to camp on a parcel of land outside Mulberry between Highway 60 and the railroad tracks and next to a phosphate mine. Alvarado’s probation officer told the court that there was no bus service to this area and that Alvarado would not be able to leave his belongings there if he left the “camp” to seek employment. Since this “camp” was simply a vacant parcel of land, presumably there are no cooking facilities, no running water, and no bathroom facilities. Not unsurprisingly, [Appellant] stated that he would prefer jail to “camping” on this piece of property.

“statutes and ordinances that relegate sexual predators to camping by a phosphate mine in Polk County are more draconian than necessary.