A loss in Miami-Dade Sex Offender Residency Restriction Challenge
This afternoon the court issued it’s findings in the Miami-Dade Sex Offender Residency Restriction challenge and it is a loss.
A copy of the document can be found here and comments will follow after it’s digested and we speak with the ACLU attorneys.
Does v. Miami-Dade – Sorr – Order of Judge
It was anticipated that whoever lost will appeal. That’s still likely.
In the mean time, the court did rule that the case was not barred by the Statute of Limitations, which is helpful to the Ex Post Facto challenge.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The court appears to have jumped to the conclusion that, since many sex crimes go unreported, then it must be those with prior convictions that are disproportionately engaging in those unreported crimes. But I’m pretty sure that neither the expert witness nor the the studies they cited, actually said that, did they?
The question asked was whether or not Sec 21-281of the county code (better known as the Lauren Book Child Safety Ordinance) was intended to be Remedial or Retributive. If the County Commissions intent was remedial, which both parties have agreed it was, the next inquiry is regardless of intent did the plaintiffs established by the “Clearest Proof” that the punitive effect of the residency restriction overrides the County’s legitimate intent to enact a non-punitive, civil measure.
Being a “Facial” Ex Post Facto challenge recidivism rates just do not matter. One side says its low, the other side says it’s “frightening and high”, neither side can disprove the other. The second argument of the availability of housing has some force but it in and by itself does not suffice. The hurdle is the “Clearest Proof”
The County clearly demonstrated other factors inhibiting the sex offenders ability to obtain housing such as plaintiffs financial ability and considering sec 21-283(a)(b)(c), the reluctance of property owners to rent to sex offenders as understandable.
I thought your SOR lawyers were legal Gods who could no wrong-what happened? Not as all knowing as touted? Seems the fact-finder was not impressed with your witnesses or legal arguments. Boo hoo. Your Ex Post Facto case is going down, too. Don’t count on the district judge’s liberalism to save you-libs hate sex offenders, too. Couldn’t happen to a more deserving group of frauds.
Senator Crook?
this what happens when you trust in people!!
Issues Presented:
1) Whether State enacted the residency restriction found in 775.215 formerly 794.065 with punitive intent.
and if so:
2) Whether Miami Dade County is barred by SECTION 11. of the State Constitution Prohibiting special laws pertaining to punishment for crime.
This should of been stricken down in the same manner as the one in Dayton MN.
I really dont know what to say Crimes that were commited 30 yrs ago still being punished. My crimes are in 1990. I lose respect for the judical system those with money can influence the laws. The crock of sh1t miscarrage
One thing that struck me was the argument that recidivism rates only SEEM low because a lot of recidivism is unreported. I don’t even begin to know how one would refute that. So do we now have court precedent that findings of low recidivism rates cannot be relied upon?
I also noticed that the county’s expert witness had more credibility with the court than did the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses, but it was unclear why.
I saw the same thing. It seems that the county’s witness, and the studies cited by the county, were given much more credible weight.
We need to make a registry of every judge, politician & law maker. Property records are public record same as criminal record, lets see how fast they rethink these draconian laws when there is a registry with their home addresses on it
I might be missing something, but if sexual assaults are not reported, how can one infer a rate of under reporting? No doubt some assaults are not reported, but is the rate high or low? Since this assertion is not quantifiable, its only value lies in the fact that it cannot be refuted, and is inserted into legal arguments only for its prejudicial effect.