Senator Book Bill advances

As if there was any doubt, Senate Bill 234 (https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/234) sailed through the Criminal Justice Committee with a vote of 8 to zero.

The bill would require anyone convicted of a sex offense to register even if they have not completed their sentence or paid their fee. It redefines the term “sex offender” in the Florida Statutes and circumvents the court’s orders in a 2nd DCA case that we wrote about last year (https://floridaactioncommittee.org/ruling-allows-tampa-man-to-avoid-sex-offender-registration-until-he-pays-10k-fine/). In the comments to that article we wrote, “UNQUESTIONABLY the legislature will pass something to address this.” So here it is…

Some of Senator Book’s other Bills this year include SB 236, requiring pretrial detention for persons charged with a “dangerous crime”, and SB 812, which would allow hearsay testimony in Human Trafficking cases.

 

18 thoughts on “Senator Book Bill advances

  • January 27, 2021 at 1:57 pm
    Permalink

    How did they (she) redefine the term “sex offender”?

    Reply
  • January 27, 2021 at 2:04 pm
    Permalink

    …and ironically, the law creates a method to sell American babies to wealthy same-sex couples in the Netherlands. (Place CP on a computer, then fly to the Netherlands and deliver baby so that the father cannot fight for custody of the unborn baby). YES, this CAN HAPPEN!

    Reply
    • January 27, 2021 at 4:02 pm
      Permalink

      Which law does that? Placing CP on a computer is a crime I thought.

      Reply
      • January 27, 2021 at 10:05 pm
        Permalink

        Not if done by “law enforcement.” Cops routinely email CP to people in chat rooms. Once they open the email, they’re screwed. No such thing as entrapment in Floriduh, especially with “sex crimes.”

        Reply
    • January 29, 2021 at 10:56 am
      Permalink

      Even worse things are happening to children and they’re using every excuse they can CONjure to grab babies. Much, much worse horrific uses of precious babies. Look up adrenachrome, if you have a strong constitution.

      Reply
  • January 27, 2021 at 2:05 pm
    Permalink

    The other two bills will require greater sheriffs’ and corrections budgets as they imprison more people. They are sure to get strong support from small-government types in our legislature.

    Reply
  • January 27, 2021 at 2:43 pm
    Permalink

    Meh. Personally, I’ll continue to ensure that the Hit Lists do absolutely nothing good. I will continue to ensure that they cause as much harm as possible and cost the most amount of resources of time, money, goodwill, and peace possible.

    Everyone should always try to take as much from big government as possible. Certainly try to take as much from their law enforcement criminals as possible. Their budgets are magnitudes too large. Vote the big government lovers out.

    Reply
  • January 27, 2021 at 3:41 pm
    Permalink

    How is this bill different from Florida SB126?

    Reply
    • January 27, 2021 at 3:46 pm
      Permalink

      Honestly… not very. 126 wasn’t sponsored by Book which is why hers is moving ahead and the other has had no action since 12/9.

      Reply
  • January 27, 2021 at 3:41 pm
    Permalink

    “requiring”. It should be up to the judge to determine. And most would not likely let hem out anyway if they are dangerous. But I love how some politicians talk criminal justice reform and then push more bills thru that do just the opposite.

    Reply
  • January 27, 2021 at 5:02 pm
    Permalink

    Perpetual Victim Barbie’s just mad because the Florida Supreme Court declined to review Logue v Book.

    LAUREN FRANCES BOOK vs. DEREK WARREN LOGUE
    Petitioner(s) Respondent(s)
    This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court on jurisdictional briefs and portions of the record deemed necessary to reflect jurisdiction under Article V, Section 3(b), Florida Constitution, and the Court having determined that it should decline to accept jurisdiction, it is ordered that the petition for review is denied.

    No motion for rehearing will be entertained by the Court. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.330(d)(2).

    CANADY, C.J., and POLSTON, LABARGA, MUÑIZ, and COURIEL, JJ.,
    concur.

    Reply
    • January 29, 2021 at 10:52 am
      Permalink

      What was the issue she had, please?

      Reply
  • January 28, 2021 at 2:21 pm
    Permalink

    Honestly, will this woman ever get a life? It gives me some pleasure in knowing that she and those like her must be so miserable that they spend most of their time digging up foolish ways to hamper the lives of registrants! Some truths about righteous people will soon be known, its only a matter of time.

    Reply
  • January 31, 2021 at 3:54 pm
    Permalink

    UPDATE ON CS/SB 234!
    Bill has been expanded to apparently address portions of our lawsuit:

    Specifying how days are calculated for the purposes of determining permanent residence, temporary residence, and transient residence;
    requiring the reporting of certain vehicle information; clarifying a requirement relating to the timing of reporting of international travel or a change of residence to another state or jurisdiction

    ” the first day a person abides, lodges, or resides at a place is
    excluded. Each day following the first day is counted. A day
    includes any part of a calendar day.”

    This really screws us. Before this change, FDLE had interpreted “a day” as “a full day”. That previous interpretation meant we could arrive at our destination on a Monday and leave on a Thursday since neither Monday or Thursday counted towards the 3 day rule. Now we must leave our destination on a Wednesday.

    https://flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/234/BillText/c1/PDF

    Going back to a broader question, if we visit a state which doesn’t require you to register for stays under 3 days, we still have to report that address in person in Floriduh?

    Reply
  • February 1, 2021 at 9:03 am
    Permalink

    Revised bill places EVEN GREATER burden on interstate and intra-state travel than is cited in our lawsuit.

    So it’s two nights per hotel per year. Not three. A third night would trigger registration and its collateral consequences. NO exceptions in cases of emergency evacuation orders.

    Get ready to amend our amended complaint!

    Reply
    • February 1, 2021 at 9:06 am
      Permalink

      (Is our lawsuit just making things worse?)

      Reply
      • February 1, 2021 at 9:27 am
        Permalink

        With luck, my math is wrong, or I don’t comprehend the language. Does it mean that the day you check into the hotel doesn’t count towards the number of days?

        So you check in Friday, then Saturday, Sunday, and Monday count, but if you haven’t registered, you must check out Monday, as that partial calendar day at the END DOES count?

        If so then that might resemble the practice people already have been engaging in, am I right? That would be three nights.

        Hope I’m not fearmongering too much here. Many thanks to the member who brought this amendment to all our attention.

        Reply
        • February 1, 2021 at 11:48 am
          Permalink

          But don’t you have to have registered before the third day has begun? Within 48 hours? Which means before 12:00 am Monday morning?

          Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *