A disappointing decision in a Florida removal case, but one that may not be the last word
The Fourth District Court of Appeal has reversed a Broward County court order that removed a registrant from Florida’s sex offender registry, ruling that FDLE has the authority to challenge a trial court’s removal order.
This is a deeply disappointing decision for registrants and for anyone who believes that courts — not administrative agencies — should have the final say in judicial proceedings. This was also the first Florida appellate decision holding that FDLE can do this. That is significant because just a few weeks ago, the Florida Supreme Court reached a completely different conclusion in a similar case, leaving us with an important conflict that needs to be resolved.
FAC has spoken with the attorney representing the petitioner in this case, and an appeal will likely be forthcoming. FAC will continue to follow this case closely and keep our members informed.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I have tracked down this decision of the court and read it in its entirety. Until you read the decision, the main issues are not clear from this FAC post. This was a case involving a registrant who does not meet the current 25-year removal provision, but would have met the former 20-year removal provision had that 2007 version been in effect today. First, the registrant was convicted of a subsection of F.S. 794.011, which under the current version is an offense that does not qualify for removal. Second, the registrant has only been “released” for 21 years, not 25 as required by the current statute. Thus, he does not qualify for removal under the current version of the statute.
The 4th DCA held that FDLE has standing to appeal the removal order of the circuit court, and the court further held that the current version of the removal statute should apply, not the 2007 version. This is not a case where FDLE appealed because it disagreed with the circuit court’s judgement on whether the registrant should or should not be removed based on whether he posed a danger to society. Rather, FDLE argued that the removal statute is civil and not criminal in nature, and therefore retroactivity is not an issue, thus the removal order violates the current version of the statute (which it clearly does).
In addition, the registrant who was removed is a Tier III offender under Federal SORNA and therefore has an independent federal duty to register for life. The current Florida removal statute requires 25-year removal to not conflict with Federal SORNA. The 4th DCA articulated why FDLE has standing to appeal the removal order under these circumstances. That is very technical legal issue.
I’m not saying whether I agree or disagree with the 4th DCA on the legal merits. However, I believe everyone needs to read the full opinion before commenting. This case is more about whether the old 20-year removal provision applies to those with offenses that predate the current 25-year removal provision, and that is a much more impactful issue than whether FDLE has standing to appeal, in my opinion. It would obviously be in the best interests of thousands of registrants (including myself) for the Florida Supreme Court to reverse this decision, but that would essentially require the FL Supreme Court to also finally rule on the retroactivity of the removal statute, which it has not been eager to do.
RM,
You are right about the merits but the issue before the Supreme Court will not be whether FDLE is right or wrong, but whether they had standing to appeal.
In Korson, the case that went before the FL Supreme Court, the 2nd circuit also thought that the lower court got it wrong, but the appellant had no standing to appeal and the court had no jurisdiction to reverse.
The Florida Supreme Court then ruled that it had no jurisdiction to take the case.
That came before the Fl supreme court twice.
I sure hope they appeal this. Especially since just few weeks ago the FL Supreme Court unanimously decided for the 2nd time, that FDLE can not stop/reverse registry removals.
As much as I respect the PFR’s privacy, I sure wish I could read the arguments in the case. I’d like to see what the State had to say and possibly learn from it.
Why are the majority of states that have automatic removal from registry after 10 years for level one, no residency restrictions, no reporting of internet identifiers or vehicle notification not used by lawyers to show that these harsh restrictions by some states do nothing to stop recidivism or keep the public safe? The states with less restrictions have no more recidivism and crime than the states with the harshest reporting laws. Some of them probably have lower crime rates than the tough states. Isn’t that proof that all these draconian restrictions are useless and serve no purpose?
It is.