First published at Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws (ACSOL)
“According to the court, one part of the challenged residency restrictions adversely could affect the ability of registrants to attend church, participate in political events, visit family, and access public libraries. Another part of the challenged restrictions could prohibit registrants from spending the night in a hospital emergency room or run in a marathon.”
Ok so he is appealing the ruling https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/27407560/McGuire_et_al_v_Marshall_et_al
And according to this https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/alabama/#:~:text=Decisions%20by%20all%20three%20district,Eleventh%20Circuit%20Court%20of%20Appeals. the next appeal stop is the 11th circuit which is us.
So this could affect us here in Florida so we need to keep tabs on this case.
Remember this man waited 7 years for this ruling he committed his offense before the registry existed I think he’s a really good plaintiff.
Appears from this that the state is appealing, not the registrant, but someone with Pacer can confirm.
If the state prevails, then that would allow Florida to make SORRs (and even presence restrictions) more expansive and vague than they are already.
Now we have a 11th circuit split with Georgia and Florida having living restrictions and Alabama having come to see the light now so it is not ok.
Lets see if the AG tells the lawyers to appeal the ruling to make the 11th pick it back up, if they do then Florida and Georgia might finally be done with living restrictions if we finally get a just ruling.
[Moderator’s note: The court writes, on Page 2 of the linked opinion, “this opinion does not consider the constitutionality of sex-offender residency restrictions generally, but only aspects of Alabama’s residency provision in its current form”].