Legislative Matrices posted on FAC website: Paper Felonies and more on the agenda
The Legislative Committee has posted two lists of legislative bills working their way through various subcommittees of the Florida Senate and House on the FAC website. A link is provided below. The matrices are located in the Legislative Committee section under the header “Committees” on the menu bar found above and just below the FAC logo.
One matrix highlights the bills considered priorities. These bills have direct and immediate effects on current registrants or changes the impact on future charges requiring registration.
The second matrix highlights bills of concern that are being monitored to be aware if amendments heighten those concerns.
The Calls to Action so far have addressed SB1230/HB1235. Most alarming in the draft of that legislation is the extreme punishment for mistakes or omissions made when registering. Each individual mistake or omission is a separate crime with a 5 year sentence. Each re-occurrence of that mistake or omission is a separate crime with a 5 year sentence. One unknown missed or omitted item over several registration cycles could quickly become a year 20 year bid.
These paper felonies need to be challenged regularly and consistently.
Thank you for the support provided to date. Trust that your calls and letters have been noticed by legislators and their staff. Being aware of the content and the status of the bills helps everyone.
LAW OF THE LAND
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U. S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for a law which violates the Constitution to be valid. This is succinctly stated as follows:
“All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.”
-Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)
“No people will tamely surrender their Liberties…when knowledge is diffused and virtue is preserved” - Sam Adams
“Though liberty is established by law, we must be vigilant, for liberty to enslave us is always present under that very liberty. Our Constitution speaks of the ‘general welfare of the people’. Under that phrase all sorts of excesses can be employed by lusting tyrants to make us bondsmen.”
-Marcus Tullius Cicero
“The closer the collapse of the Empire, the crazier its laws are.”
– Marcus Tullius Cicero
Someone that has legal knowledge answer this question: Why do we even have to bring our case to court? “Ex Post Facto law – We all know that we are way past Smith Vs Doe. We have seen these laws morph into more than regulatory (for public safety) laws. I know I see it, I know you see it, we all know the lawmakers see it and as much as admitted it to some members of our group behind closed doors. Yet these new laws that purposely try to enslave us are created every year. They also get more aggressive and constricting, especially here in Florida. You can put any shade of lipstick you want on a pig, but it’s still a PIG!
just my pointless opinion, The laws the legislator passes each session are assumed to be legal. In smith vs doe when it was decided it was legal as a civil regulatory scheme since Calder v. Bull (1798) says civil matters, do not constitute ex post facto status. So no ex post facto status If its civil. we have to prove each new bill this punitive and of course it is.
And unfortunately how the law is written we being the plaintiff have the burden to show proof that the law is not civil in design but punitive intent.
Somehow we have to convince the judges to actually rule fairly and not based on their reelection perception.
We now have to prove the law is punishment. I agree if it walks like a duck talks like a duck swim like a duck, it’s a damn duck.
You are confused. Any statute passed by the legislature, even knowingly ignoring the constitution, will send you to prison until it is overturned by a judge, which will then be appealed multiple times by the government while you rot in prison until you are finally finished with the sentence or deceased. That is how our constitutional justice system works.
Often times no one challenges the new law, and it stands even though it is against the constitution.
The whole registry scheme was designed to be a tell on ones self from the beginning. The fact that a single failure to comply, can land somebody in prison for 5 years, was set up to threaten us with telling on ourselves for everything. It’s a catch 22, a double edged sword. Miss something, or fail to meet the 48 hour deadline, and your left with a choice, or no choice at all. On the chance you didn’t make the 48 hour deadline, you have the choice of telling on yourself by registering late, and face a possible 5 year prison sentence, or say nothing and hope they don’t catch you. In the chance you missed something, well it can land you in prison for 5 years or more if they catch you, or if you happen to remember some time later, it’s again should I register and face prison, or let it slide and hope they don’t notice. The only thing changing is the amount of time they can fish out, for letting it slide, but doesn’t get around the telling on yourself if you miss the 48 deadline, and makes it a death sentence if you completely forgot about something that did require registering. They’ve made it quite clear it’s all about the money, with a facade of being for public safety, but we know this is a load of crap.
Does anyone know if any non registrant family member or friend has ever sued the state for placing their address on the sex offender registry because a sex offender has visited them when no sex offender is a resident of their property?
Seems to me they have grounds to do so and it’s unconstitutional.
See the Non-Registrant Collateral Consequences Challenge on our homepage. This lawsuit will challenge the registration requirements imposed on people not on the registry. It will be brought on behalf of registrants’ family, friends, employers and others who are impacted by the registry by virtue of living with, employing, or even sharing the same family name as a registrant. Plaintiffs will be spouses who have their vehicles registered and flagged, children who can’t have a parent watch them graduate or perform in a school play, roommates who are prevented from decorating their home for the holidays, and others.
So, if you are serving a term of probation in Florida, the law does not consider you a sex offender for the purpose of registering – at least that what the Second District Court of Appeals says. Take a look at their recent en banc ruling. https://2dca.flcourts.gov/content/download/1638876/opinion/Opinion_21-2784.pdf
So does this mean that individuals serving their sanction of probation should be removed from the registry if they are not considered “sex offenders” for the purposes of section 94.0435?
I was wondering if I was the only one who saw this is huge. From what I submitted this case should be appealed to supreme court, since it contradicts other cases, it’s going to be something if the people on probation can get off the registry (at least temporarily), but the people off probation has to say on the registry, that is going to be ironic.
However, the most serious people have lifetime probation and since they amended the registry in 2021 the people before 2021 or 2019 when James was decided could theoretically come off the registry since their lifetime probation and has never ended and therefore not all sanctions have been completed, so how is the registry protective when potentially the most so-called dangerous people are now gonna be eligible to get off?
What is really ironic is that I brought this to the attention of the Second DCA panel that I presented oral argument to last Tuesday in my case against Commissioner Glass regarding a statute of limitations issue. Aside from the continuing violation doctrine issue in Doe v Swearingen, I argued that it was not until my sanction of supervised release termed in 2021 that I was subject to 943.0435. Therefore, the 4 year statute of limitations period for the constitutional challenges I have raised in my complaint did not run at the time of my conviction in 2006, but in 2021. Needless to say, the judges, along with opposing counsel from the A.G.’s office were rather intrigued. I guess this en banc ruling only 3 days later provesdmy point.
Sorry folks, can someone please explain what this case means to us PFRs?
The court is saying “the sanctions” must be completed before you are forced to register. Fines, probation, community control…
So technically all the sanctions are not completed you don’t have to register. So the state will be forced to waive probation, fines, community control if it wants to be able to register people would my long term view.
Therefore, one cannot be forced to register if technically one is still on probation has fines is under community control etc. if convicted before 2021 amendment change.
The man only challenged the probation aspect or rather the state has only challenged the probation aspect.
Theoretically, I believe you could use this. For housing restrictions. Since most people after committing a sex offense are sentenced usually to probation after a prison term they then could get out of prison first then move into a home without triggering the 1,000/2,500 foot rule since one is not released from the state sanctions.
It doesn’t mean anything yet.. but it looks to be going to the Supreme Court.
Folks, I hate to be the one to break it to y’all, but there is zero chance that FDLE will view this ruling as an order to remove anyone from the registry, or exempt anyone from registration. And even if they did, the Florida legislature would be sure to clarify the law; they wouldn’t need to wait on the Florida Supreme Court to do that for them.
We have a Call to Action in effect. Keep those calls and emails going!
To be clear, sex offenders are still required to register in the jurisdiction where they live under SORNA unless they have been relieved of their federal duty to register. So for a sex offender convicted of a State offense who is still on probation in Florida would be required to register. But, according to this en banc decision, that person would not be classified as a sex offender for the purposes of 943.0435. So, my understanding would be that this person would be registering with the local authorities under the federal requirements listed in SORNA. The thing about that is that unless that person who is on probation for a State conviction, crosses state lines, the federal government could not prosecute that person for failing to register under 18 U.S.C. 2250. So, in essence, a person convicted of a State offense who is on probation could avoid the registration process without fear of prosecution by the State or the feds. Sometimes the legislators trip themselves up over all the convoluted laws they have enacted. Lol.
I know we are busy with the call to action but you should read the court decision when you get time.
Why write 77 pages if it’s not important.
The legislature did try to clarify this rule.
That’s the issue
recent controversy rule” to reexamine our prior application of the prior version of section 943.0435(1). We explained:
Under this [the recent controversy] rule, when “an amendment to a statute is enacted soon after controversies as to the interpretation of the original act arise, a court may consider that amendment as a legislative interpretation of the original law and not as a substantive change thereof.” See Lowry v. Parole & Prob. Comm’n, 473 So. 2d 1248, 1250 (Fla. 1985); see also Madison at Soho II Condo. Ass’n v. Devo Acquisition Enters., 198 So. 3d 1111, 1116 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). P8
We hold that the recent controversy rule—in which a court
considers subsequent legislative amendments to construe the meaning of prior statutory text—is no longer a viable method of construing statutory text in the wake of the Florida Supreme Court’s decisions in Ham and Conage.14 We recede from Hull and Madison at Soho to the extent that both of those decisions rested on the recent controversy rule’s authority.
We return to the textual interpretation James gave the prior version of section 943.0435. At the time of Mr. Crose’s alleged offense, he was required to register as a sex offender following his release from “the sanction imposed,” not just a single part of the sanction. Because probation was part of Mr. Crose’s sanction and he was still serving that probation at the time of his alleged offense, the circuit court correctly dismissed this charge. See James, 298 So. 3d at 94. P. 48-49
If you’re on probation for a crime before 20’ you are technically not a registered citizen yet read the court decision in the second court of appeals.
Last case https://www.floridalawweekly.com/flwonline/?page=wirflw