Update on Ex Post Facto I and II Lawsuits
Following the legal challenges on the Ex Post Facto cases can be compared to riding a rollercoaster – first, be glad to see it moving, climbing ever so slowly up the first hill, then brace yourself for the ride…. plenty of ups and downs with negotiable turns and unexpected twists, and as an added surprise, the track splits into two. As you approach the end of one track, you are thrusted onto another track and the climb begins again.
In 2018, the case of Does vs Swearingen was filed in the Southern District Court of Florida. That lawsuit was nicknamed “Ex Post Facto Plus” because it challenged the registration requirement as violating the ex post facto clause, in addition to several other challenges (the “Plus”). We expected that a win in that case would mean that any state law passed after the date of someone’s offense would not be applicable to them. For example, if the offense was July 25, 2009, then any state law passed after that would not apply to you. That was the intent of the original case, but the scope of the case changed as a result of defense challenges and judicial decisions leading up to the trials.
In 2019, FDLE challenged the original lawsuit based on a statute of limitations, claiming that the complaints by each plaintiff had to be made within four years of being placed on the Florida Registry. The attorneys for the Does (Plaintiffs) immediately appealed that decision, and at the same time they initiated a second lawsuit in which a single Jane Doe plaintiff was within the 4-year period.
Hence, we now had two separate lawsuits to follow and two separate tracks to ride out: Does vs Swearingen (Ex Post Facto I) and Harper vs Swearingen (Ex Post Facto II). When Mark Glass replaced FDLE Commissioner Rick Swearingen in 2022, the cases were renamed as Harper vs Glass and Does vs Glass.
While the original Ex Post Facto Plus case (Does vs Glass) was in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, the Ex Post Facto II case (Harper vs Glass) was moving through the Federal Northern District. In 2019 FDLE moved to dismiss all of their claims in that case as well. The judge granted FDLE’s motion on many of the claims, including the claim that the registration requirement violated the ex post facto clause, based on binding precedent. But he allowed the case to proceed on these claims: 1) that the 3-day restriction on travel, enacted in 2018, violates the ex post facto clause and 2) the 3-day restriction on travel violates the substantive due process clause.
The bench trial for the Harper vs Glass (Ex Post Facto II) was heard by Judge Robert Hinkle in Federal District Court, Tallahassee, with closing arguments on 11/15/2023. Per the attorneys for Harper: “If we win on the ex post facto claim, it would mean that the 2018 provision, requiring in-person reporting of travel for as few as 3 days in the aggregate per year, would not apply to anyone whose offense was committed before it was enacted. If we win on the substantive due process claim, it would mean that the 2018 three (3)-day rule would not apply to anyone.”
Not only are WE anxiously awaiting for the judge’s decision [slowing down on track 1], but so is the judge in Miami. In 2022, Does vs Swearingen (Glass) won the appeal and the Eleventh Circuit court remanded many of the claims back to the Southern District court. There was an order issued last week, 11/20/2023, by Judge Williams, who has been presiding over the John Does case (Ex Post Facto I) in the Southern District of Florida [picking up speed on track 2]. You can read Judge Williams’ order here. In summary, here is what the order does:
1) It grants FDLE’s motion to dismiss the state constitutional claims (claims raised separately under the state, rather than federal constitution) based on the doctrine of sovereign immunity. In other words, a federal court does not have jurisdiction to decide a claim against the state brought under the state constitution.
2) It grants a stay of proceedings in the Southern District (Ex Post Facto I John Does case), until after the Northern District rules on Harper vs Glass (Ex Post Fact II). That is because the 3-day travel restriction was raised in the Southern District case too. Therefore, a ruling from the Northern District — whether Harper wins or loses there — may affect the nature of the John Doe claims and the scope of trial in the Southern District.
Judge Williams has ordered both sides to let her know the status of the Northern District case within three (3) days of an order from that court, and the impact of that case on the John Does case in the Southern District. Prepare for the ride on track 2!
While a win in either case may seem like a small prize, the legal landscape permits only a small prize — prior case law precludes wider relief at this time. Three (3) lawsuits were filed in Florida challenging the registration statute within months after the 2018 enactment, including Does, because the 3-day restriction made a big difference in people’s lives.
The attorneys for Does had argued vigorously in their response to the motion to dismiss, trying to distinguish their case from early prior case law precluding ex post facto claims. They pointed out that the prior case law involved much less restrictive versions of the registration statute, and in the years since, the statute had steadily grown more punitive. But in October 2022 (after the Harper vs Swearingen case was filed), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, the federal appeals court for cases from Florida, Georgia and Alabama, upheld Alabama’s registration statute — which is similar to Florida’s in many respects — against an ex post facto challenge. That case was McGuire v. Marshall.
McGuire v Marshall specifically addressed the Alabama travel restriction, which, like Florida’s, requires in-person reporting for 3+-day trips. In summary judgment proceedings, FDLE argued that McGuire v. Marshall meant we lost even the 3-day challenge. But the attorneys for Harper argued that the Alabama 3-day rule is materially distinguishable from Florida’s. The judge denied FDLE’s motion for summary judgment and allowed Harper to proceed to trial on that challenge.
McGuire v Marshall is regarded as eliminating the prospect of another ex post facto challenge to the statute as a whole for the foreseeable future. In the meantime, we can target individual provisions that are especially punitive. If Harper prevails, it makes good sense to challenge other specific provisions, which will be discussed at another time.
It is most important to recognize the ground that has been gained, Harper vs Glass may be the first to get to trial in a Florida federal court since the registration statute was passed. That is a win in itself for registered citizens as they will finally have their day(s) in court on an especially punitive provision of the statute.
The heavy burden of proof is placed on us, and courts almost invariably rule against registrants. But with courageous plaintiffs, expert witnesses, and support from our members and advocates, we remain confident that the strong, knowledgeable legal team representing them will make the very best case they can.
As we prepare for the Does vs Glass trial in the Federal Southern District Court in Miami, it is imperative that we build our legal fund to meet the 2023 goal. This is the time to donate what you can.
Online at https://floridaactioncommittee.org/donations/
By Mail to: Florida Action Committee, 6615 Boynton Beach Blvd #414, Boynton Beach FL 33437
Tax deductible donations can be made to: Justice Transitions Inc, PO Box 470932, Lake Monroe FL 32747
Your Support Makes it Possible – Thank you.
So how do you claim sovereign immunity when many of these newer restrictions arise out of the Adam Walsh Act?
I have read this summary and I am confused. I am no lawyer so I have to ask – Does this have anything to do with the question of applying for removal from the registry which was changed from 20 years to 25 years?
I only read about 3 day travel trips and I have not lived in Florida for 15 years however, I am still listed on the vile state registry there and want to petition for removal.
Thank you for the update and for the additional info.
yeah I’m in the same boat as you. I was sentenced in 2003 and had 3 years of probation no jail time and a withheld of adjudication. I haven’t lived in Florida since 2015 and enjoy my life in Washington state as I do not appear on any online registry for the state here just of Course Florida registry. Thankful for that Withheld of Adjudication part however I was forced to register. I will post the article below but in 2020:
Prior to 2007, 943.0435(11) provided an opportunity to petition for relief after 20 years without subsequent arrest. In 2007, the State moved the finish line to 25 years and added a bunch of offenses that would render someone never able to petition for removal.
Today, a Circuit Court Judge ruled that the state can’t move the finish line. That alone, was a decision that is consistent with the same ruling judges in several other Florida Circuits have made, but what makes this one extra special is that the Judge expressly found the “2007 amendment to be punitive in nature”!”
Its my understanding that ruling is now tied up in all of this as well somehow. Sadly as I was sentenced in 2003 and did 3 years of probation I have to wait 20 years of time plus the 3 years i did on probation before I can as to get off this stupid thing so another 2 years left before I can challenge. I’m already saving up the 10k in a high yield savings account for this special day.
I’m hoping this challenge doesn’t throw out this ruling out the window. Somebody PLEASE feel free to correct me if I’m wrong here.
https://floridaactioncommittee.org/florida-cant-move-the-finish-line-on-removal/
Thank you for the update but not I’m confused.
Ok let’s use the date or example, if my offense was July 25, 2009 like you said. If we win this lawsuit, will we no longer have to list the cars at the house, my Internet identifiers and everything they added since 2009 if charged that year, or are we fighting for the three days to report when we leave and only that?
Do you see this splintering into different groups like Michigan lawsuit? People convicted pre Sorna, people convicted from Sorna implementation to when this case was filed , and then people convicted after this lawsuit? It seems like you would have different subclass lawsuit by each year they tweaked the Florida Registry I believe this is what Michigan is currently dealing with.
So will travel go back to 14 days like it was when Florida first implement these laws since anything less than the original posting of Sorna could be considered punishment if the judge rules in our favor.
I just don’t see how the 2018 version triggers ex post facto punishment but not any version after the original.
And of course thank you to our fabulous legal team since without you this would not be possible.
Thank you so much for the update. A lot of good information to digest and I will have to break it down into small parts. However the more parts of this registry that are found to be punitive the better, even if it’s just a couple we build out case for abolishment since this entire house of cards was built on the registry being a civil regulatory scheme.
Yea, I saw the teacher who was “molesting” female students just got 8 months probation and no sex offender registry. What is up with these new sentencing guidelines? Are judges finally realizing the lifelong effects of the crippling registry?
Jerry
I personally do not care that he got a deal. What I do care about is, how the Hell are the rest of us who have been on the registry since it was created (Retroactively I must add) can never, ever get off (At least in Florida). Yet with all the advanced add on requirements, this person gets to make a deal with no registration? Where was our deal? Can we go back and re-negotiate? NO!
A case that I just commented about might be helpful. Many like myself had no registry when we were arrested and added years later when it came out without a path off.
Now I just say a guy on the local news here in Florida who had multiple sex charges and he said he would only plead guilty if he never had to register as a sex offender and the judge agreed. So my question is, how can that person make that deal but none of us who were convicted before the registry can assumably ever be removed even though we did not get that chance in court because the registry did not exist. Is that not violating the entire concept of the registry, that it is a requirement? I was NOT sentenced to have to register, nor were many on here.
I am sorry but the law sucks and is dishonest in its rulings. That judge circumvented the law and not sure she had the authority to that and wouldn’t be surprised if that person is not later added to the registry (Since none of the rest of us got due process)
Speaking of that why hasn’t due process been used as a defense.
Ok I am done, going back to the dungeon.
@Cherokee – The judge allowed him to plead to “child abuse”, which is not a sex crime that requires registration. The busted would-be Seminole County judge, Andrew John Jones, used the same trick a couple of years ago. I expect to see this kind of deal happening much more often in the future. It goes to show how silly it is that a guy like me, whose “crime” was no worse than theirs needs to be surveilled for the rest of my life, because I’m obviously dangerous, but these “child abuse” guys don’t. I’m on the registry forever because of the name of my criminal charge, not because I’m evaluated to be dangerous in any way.
RayO
Thanks, glad someone agrees with me. I was going to say if I could go back in time, I would have gone to trial instead of pleading guilty. However, if I could go back in time, I could go back and not do the things I DID actually do.
I am seeing murderers who had life sentences, getting released, and yet we are never, ever are able to get off the registry, even upon death.
There are a lot of other countries that are starting to take note of the human rights violations the U.S is placing on certain citizens.
Thank you for the update. I dont completely understand it. But im hopeful these cases don’t bring yet more bad case law like the Alabama case. We all know this garbage is punishment without a doubt. But getting a court to stop playing games with our freedom may be difficult. They have zero to loose except there next election.
These are federal judges who are given lifetime appointments, not state judges who can lose an election. See,this is a major problem with federal judges: you can never get rid of them.
@Just
The GOOD news, we are NOT going away. We will continue to flood and back up the courts until the end of time until we are finally heard. It is time for us to stop being scared and starting to fight back with vigilance. If they want us to stop, they can start giving us a pathway off the registry.
Just think if you were sentenced to life on probation with no chance to get off. You would eventually not give a crap anymore and just do what you want. You cannot even believe the amount of times I have been pulled over for a bogus traffic violation. Now when I see a patrol car behind me, I purposely turn onto another street until they pass by. Many cities now have license plate readers that automatically gives all info about the driver directly to the officer’s computer screen.
Pariah
There is no consistency. In my area, one judge allows you to be removed at 20 years, then if you see a different judge (You do not get to pick your judge) that just in the same court system, does not allow your removal. That is why some attorneys pull their cases if they are assigned a certain judge and wait and re-file later.
That is how I got off probation. My original judge who sentenced me, refused to end probation early. We waited 2 more years until another judge was seated and he ended my probation, even against the prosecutor climbing the ceiling, yelling, flopping on the floor and spewing green slime from her mouth LOL (She was really pissed she could not control the judge).
So all we get is going back to 5 day instead of 3 for travel over this years long tens of thousands of dollar lawsuit? Sorry if I am wrong here…
It is not over. This was a plaintiff who could not be dimissed on the 4-year statute of limitations while the original case dismissal based on that 4-year statute of limitations was being appealed. This single plaintiff was placed on the registry in 2017 and only able to challenge changes from 2018.
The plaintiffs in the original case have been on the registry more than 4 years and will be challenging other issues, now that the case won the appeal and is expected to go to trial next.
Ok membership, so what you’re saying is we are challenging the 2018 Florida version of the registry and if successful (which I hope we are) then we can challenge the older versions which are passed the 4 year statue of limitations.
So then are you going to find a plaintiff whose charge was before the registry and then argue that if the 2018 statue is punishment as well as Does I case is punishment, therefore the registry is punishment overall?
What I don’t understand is how they plan on defining what groups to place people in if it goes by the date of conviction? It feels like every other year they implement new obligations that we are forced to adhere to, the time to report these changes has shrunk on each new revision of the registry. I just don’t see how they can keep everything thing straight there’s going to be people who conviction predated certain requirements but not others key requirements and some people whos offense predated the registry period.
Every year of changes implemented to Florida Registry is punishment there is no way a honest judge can say anything else.
Eugene
I am an example of that, I have never, ever been told I could not participate in Halloween, (Once I was off probation) but I choose not to anyway, for obvious reasons. I get my 2 check ups from Sheriff’s office a year and other than the 4 registration times per year, I get left alone.
(Copied from a law school post online, A major known school I will not name so that I do not get accused of mis-quoting anyone)
The right to travel is a constitutional right that has been recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States. It is protected under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the U.S. Constitution . The clause states that “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The Supreme Court has long recognized the right to travel from one state to another under the Privileges and Immunities Clause, as well as other constitutional provisions.
(Copied from a law school post online. Not my words but that of the law school)
** We seem to only have the right to travel if we register it, even though most of us are not on probation, so we are being denied travel unless we “Get permission from the registry gods”.
5 days versus 3 days would be absolutely huge imo. (At least for me) I currently limit where I go and how often based on this, and would be much less burdensome if it goes back to 5. Thank you FAC for this. Let’s hope the judge rules in our favor.
A Lot more the tens of thousands buddy. Why don’t we ask Fac what the total price is.
Please forgive me as I think in my utter desperation ive just drawn a blank. I am totally uncertain what this all means to us and im actually more tense reading it than i was before. Is there any good to this?
I’m confused about this 3 day rule being challenged in court. I have a document from FDLE that says we PFRs don’t have to notify our local Florida sheriff office when traveling for more than 3 days out of state unless we stay in the same place for 3 or more days. So, is the court challenge against the 3 day notification OR the 3 day stay?
Wow so different from when it all started. 3 day travel rule… What a joke and you consider that a win. A lot of money for nothing. It is punishment we know it and they know it too, they just don’t care. Pre 1997 ex post facto. A better example of the roller coaster is how much the story changes. Tell me again how we are winning?
Truth
I am keeping my mouth shut, less I get kicked off of FAC. Regardless if we win or lose, I am enjoy having the friendship on here of like minded people. I do not talk too much to my parents about all this stuff as they are elderly and my Mom gets upset. I just keep telling her I am ok and I am not 12 anymore, I can fight a grizzly bear with one hand behind my back and all that stuff. Oy Vey.
I’m a big boy and this is still America so please don’t keep your mouth shut. I would absolutely love to have this conversation with you. I’ve been a member of FAC from the beginning Jack. Out of all the things that we go through every day do you really think anyone really cares about the 3 day rule? I’ve also been on the registry pretty much from the beginning. So I’m not new to this or the changes I’ve seen through out the years. Thank you FAC for posting my comment. Integrity is key.
[moderated]
Truth
Yeah I stopped leaving the state when I saw people comment they were ending up having to register in the state they traveled to, or were detained by law enforcement during a license plate reader stop.
Heck I get nervous leaving my county. The cops where I live are pretty decent but I have been detained in other Florida cities for up to 5 hours, just for “Driving while registered.
But yeah, the 3 day rule does not help me but glad it can help someone else. Even though I do not do Halloween, I am glad they went up against that because even if you did not participate, they were making you put a nasty sign on your lawn making you a target. So yeah, that was a win in my book.
But the thing I really want to say would get me banned (Even though I said it on here before and I was told I was correct) so I am not going to stir up bees again as after that, none of my posts were allowed for about 2 months.
Truth I understand the want for the regisistry to be immediatley overturned but as we found in maguire the 11th circuit can be tough. This will have to be brought down piece by piece. And imagine if we could take a extended weekend vacation with out having to register. 3 to 5 days would be a huge step in the right direction. Also remember we still have ex post facto 1 that is addressing multiple facets of the registry.
Just my opinion:
The original lawsuit got thrown out since it was past four years statue limitations. We then had to find a new plaintiff (doe II) whose charge was under the four years so the first case is pending on the outcome of the second case.
you could look at it that way or see the bigger picture. If we win Does II case (which we should) showing that the registry is punishment (traveling going from 5 to 3 days) we can then challenge all the other burdensome requirements that the legislature has enacted after your offense.
If we win this lawsuit it should open the floodgates for a lot more lawsuits since we have established
precedence that the registry is punishment. It very well could be our watershed moment of our registry battle.
I absolutely appreciate and share your frustration. However, I am hopeful that Judge Hinkle (and Judge Williams) will do the right thing and give us the win on this one point. Truly, 5 days instead of three days is an improvement.
The changing of the tide (literal or figurative) doesn’t happen with the snap of fingers. My thoughts are on the coming legislative session, and what a powerful, chilling message our potential win (and the recent wins in other states) should send to the lawmakers who seek, each and every year, to make our lives more miserable.
I know that many of you, like myself, are Believers, and every. single. day. of my life I lay the grave injustice of the registry at His feet. Our God hates sin, that is true. But our God is also just and merciful, and I know that the injustice and cruelty of these laws anger him just as much as the mistakes that placed us under them. I’m reminding myself to keep praying, keep running the race with patience, and to keep looking unto Jesus, the author and the finisher of our faith. Maybe this is the year we’ll be handed a fantastic Christmas gift.
The real win in that decision would be a judge calling it punitive and then the case in sought Florida agreeing. Remember this whole thing was built on it being constitutional because it isn’t punitive. The more courts that use that word the more likely we can build a far greater case that the whole thing is punitive. It will take time but is moving in the right direction.
Since Alabama was brought up in the McGuire Case. I have a question then about branded DL’s and Internet Identifers. I am aware of the Internet Identifers case ruled on by Judge Hinkle a few years back. I feel he help alot by defining that it was only Social Media accounts and Social in nature. But if we are basing our Ex Post Facto Claims due to a rulling by the 11th COA from Alabama, do we have recourse on the branded DL and Internet Identifers due to Doe v Marshall. In Doe V Marshall Judge Watkins rulled the branded DL and Internet Identifiers were unconstitiutional. To my knowledge Alabama did not fight this. It would appear we have two federal courts in two different states but under the same Court of Appeals making contrary rullings. Do we have options here to revist the Identifers case?
Attorneys Dante P. Trevisani and Ray Taseff with the Florida Justice Institute have filed an injunctive and declaratory relief request for plaintiff who is being forced to acquire and display a driver license that brands him as SEXUAL PREDATOR and broadcasts the government’s message that he is a danger to the public.
The Florida statute that requires the branding of Plaintiff’s driver license is unconstitutional, both on its face and as applied to Plaintiff, because it compels Plaintiff, and all registered sexual predators, to engage in speech and communicate the government’s message, in violation of the First Amendment.
https://floridaactioncommittee.org/court-challenge-in-florida-concerning-branding-driver-license-with-sexual-predator/
For sure and I am aware of that case and it should be a win. But even the statute number is compelled speech. The second part of comment about the internet identifiers, do we have recourse in this as for v Marshall came after our Delgado case.
Doe v Marshall did not find statute number to be compelled speech. In fact, it characterized statute number as a discrete label that represented an example of a less restrictive means of achieving state’s interest.
The statute that is only on person’s forced to register along with a special hologram is.
I agree and that was not my point. But the mear presence of the statute number on the front in blue font. Is still compelled speech. It is still making me say to, my banker, the bouncher at the club, the hotel when I check in, the doctors office, etc. hey look at me I am a regisitered citizen.
Trust me those people are trained to notice stuff like that on our license do not fool yourself. Least restrictive and not compelled speech would have it not on there at all. When that police office does random plate scans, if that car is registered to you. They know who you are and do need your license to tell them that.
I’ve been required to register since 2011.
I’ve been a supporter and hopeful that something can change and it has progressively for the worst.
These lawsuits never make it past 1st base people.
No POLITICIAN wants to fall on the sword in the name if child sexual offenders!
I mean to be totally honest if I wasn’t one I’d probably have the burn them at the stake mentality as well.
Humans like to follow the herd and there is one thing that is universal no matter what country u are in…even in prison sex offenders are at the bottom even amongst other criminals..
It’s time to wake up face the facts stop pouring funds into these lawsuits and let’s help the homeless sex offenders..
Just saying…
Above is a strange response to a description of a trial and an appellate win. If those aren’t “past first base” then I don’t know what is.
Notice that registrants are not driving with special plates, having “criminal sex offender” printed in red on their licenses, displaying special signs on Halloween, or registering every url that they visit. Anyone know why this is?
Notice that in California and Michigan, registrants no longer face restrictions on where they live or set foot. Now how did that happen?
These registry schemes took years to build up and will take years to tear down. Patience, people.
Hopefully before I die I hope.
@Me
At least when we are dead, we won’t ever have to step foot in the registry office again.
@Jacob
I can only speak for myself, but think many agree, no problem with all FAC does, it is the judges that are afraid of being soft on sex offenders. Many of these judges also apply their personal feelings, beliefs, ideas and thoughts, even though they take an oath to be un-partial.
I agree if I was a victim, I would want the person punished. But to continue to add restrictions to people who are no longer on paperwork and make their lives miserable, is basic malice. Add to that to say these requirements are not punishment, even when one of us is murdered, is just hate or at least apathy. (a lack of feeling, emotion, interest, or concern about something).
One of these cases was filed by a group of registrants whose cases were from prior to 10/01/1997 before the supposed civil SO law was enacted in Fl and they were forced to registered retroactively outside of the court venue. They had to comply with new rules imposed by the state that their judge never imposed because the law didn’t exist then.
Congratulations to Val and her hard work on the Harper v. Glass case in the federal northern district of Florida. Today’s order strikes down as unconstitutional the in-state, in-person reporting requirements and the duplicative requirement to report to DMV when traveling in-state for more than 3 days. The FDLE Commissioner is now required to offer on-line reporting to registrants who are traveling in-state for more than 3 days. He has 60 days to do so according to the order. Again, thank you Val for all your hard work!!
(Originally posted by: Kyle M.)
Is this our big win in the ex post fact o II suit so now we can proceed with the expos facto one or is this just a speed bump in our ex post facto two suit?
Thank you Mrs. Harper for being our plaintiff.
The order did not find the in-state traveling reporting requirement as violative of the ex post facto clause. The holding was that it was facially unconstitutional in violation of substantive due process which could not withstand a rational basis for a legislative purpose.
LOL laymens terms. If the State does not create a place on the portal then we still have to go in?
So then in your opinion what does this mean for our expost facto I lawsuit. That our other lawsuit must be narrowly tailored to focus on “violation of substantive due process” and a “rational basis for legislative purposes”?
I’m trying to not jump to conclusions but it seems it’s a win but not the win we wanted. Or it will make our main lawsuit a little more difficult since we have to overcome legislative purpose standing , (i.e. they’re going to claim public safety) instead of us just us relying on the ex post facto argument.
Thank you for keeping us informed on the lawsuit.
The problem with the ex post facto challenge is that it has failed numerous times in federal court with regard to Florida’s registration requirements. As offenders, we do not want the legislature to pile on more onerous requirements. But, that may need to happen to finally tip the scales in an ex post facto challenge where it needs to be proven that the statute is punitive in its effect and intent. Until then, victories, such as Harper, keep the legislators in check and provide a form of relief that will keep offenders from inadvertently violating the statute. Now, you can take your family to Orlando for a week without worrying about making a trip to the sheriff’s office and DMV.
So, only the component of “in-person” reporting was found to be “facially unconstitutional,” since we still have to report the travel online? That’s all we won?
So, the 2018 statute required in-person reporting to the sheriff’s office and the DMV within 48 hours of the new “residence” and offender was staying in the Florida. Yesterday’s order struck the duplicative reporting to the DMV and the in-person reporting requirement to the sheriff’s office. Since the statute does not say that the reporting of the “residence” must be in-person, the Court determined that to report in-person within 48 hours was too burdensome to withstand constitutional muster. So, the Court ordered the Commissioner to make available an on-line reporting system within 60 days.
If the FDLE doesnot create a space on the Portal for this reporting does that mean we do not have to report it at all? Or Is this just a work around without striking that portion from the statute?
Nice win just trying to understand the Scope of the win.
Can we read the ruling? I have no idea where to find it. I’m *so* eagerly awaiting news of what exactly this means for us. It is a long-awaited answer to much, much prayer.
“The [judge’s] heart is a stream of water in the hand of the Lord; he turns it wherever he will.” Proverbs 21:1
It is on Pacer, if you have an account you can get it there. 4:21-cv-00085 is the case number. My question is can there be an appeal, I imagine the state could. It will be good once FAC releases a statement.
A small victory in my case against the FDLE Commissioner. The appellate court has reversed and remanded the case to the trial court with an opportunity for me to amend the complaint. While it does not address the constitutional issues raised in the complaint, it does address the statute of limitations and venue in my favor. Any assistance is greatly appreciated. The panel was very intrigued with the novelty of the case at oral argument.
https://2dca.flcourts.gov/content/download/2251696/opinion/Opinion_23-1366.pdf