A Mixed Bag: Challenge to Florida’s “SEXUAL PREDATOR” Driver License Branding Dismissed—But Not on the Merits
The U.S. District Court has ruled against the plaintiff in a challenge to Florida’s requirement that the words “SEXUAL PREDATOR” appear prominently on the driver’s licenses of individuals designated as sexual predators. Bad news for this Plaintiff, obviously, but it’s not quite as bad as it seems.
The plaintiff, Lane Kirkpatrick, argued that forcing him to carry and present a driver’s license branded with “SEXUAL PREDATOR” violates the First Amendment by compelling him to communicate the government’s message every time he shows his ID. The State argued that he didn’t even have standing to bring the lawsuit. The court disagreed.
In fact, the judge found that Mr. Kirkpatrick did have standing, recognizing that he had presented evidence of real injuries, including a canceled hotel reservation, lost work opportunities, additional TSA screening, and the stigma he experiences whenever he has to present his license. The court also acknowledged that even a temporary violation of First Amendment rights is itself a cognizable injury.
So why did he lose? Not because the court decided the branding is constitutional. He lost because of the statute of limitations.
The court concluded that Mr. Kirkpatrick’s claim accrued when he first received a driver’s license bearing the “SEXUAL PREDATOR” designation in 2015. Because he didn’t file suit until 2023, the court held that his claim was filed too late under Florida’s four-year statute of limitations for § 1983 actions.
In fact, the judge closed the opinion by stating: “The Court makes no prediction as to the outcome of a challenge presented by a different plaintiff.” That is an important statement.
For those wondering what comes next, the opinion may actually point the way forward. FAC has spoken with an attorney for the Florida Justice Institute (who represented the Plaintiff). They are disappointed by the decision here, but not throwing in the towel by any means. If you are a person who was first issued a Florida driver’s license bearing the “SEXUAL PREDATOR” designation within the past four years, you would no have the same statute-of-limitations problem that prevented Mr. Kirkpatrick’s case from going forward. In other words, someone in that position could be a strong candidate to bring the very same constitutional challenge.
If that describes you and you are interested in pursuing such a case, please reach out to FAC. While we cannot provide legal advice or representation, we would like to hear from individuals who may be in a position to challenge this law before their limitations period expires and potentially make the introduction.
You can read the decision here: Kirkpatrick – Drivers License Case
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
But how could evidence of injury be presented if not for having the id branding for a substantial period of time to prove consistency of repeated injury?
Florida’s licensing period is 8 years, if he appealed this in the same period of the license, 2015-2023 which is when he filed, It could have been in the same period. A new period is a new instance and he can file again.
Wouldn’t it also apply if you had to ‘renew’ your drivers license in the last 4 years? Plus, it seems like a satute of limitations wouldn’t even apply here due to the fact the violation of his first amendment rights happen EVERY time he has to show his drivers license, effectively restarting the 4 year clock…?
Just my common sense thoughts, which of course rarely collides in the same sentence with the courts or lawmakers…..
can’t they appeal as it is a continuing violation every time he brandish’s his lic? there should be no time limit on an ongoing violation. so if a person’s protected rights are violated the violation continues as long as the victim of this law does not institute a civil matter. after all this is a civil issue i think the court should have granted the victim injunction relief at the very least! i don’t understand these courts! allowing continuing harm when they know it’s not right just to kick the can down the road! i hope it gets appealed
Good point. I’m going out on a limb here and going as far as saying every time the man renews his license, wouldn’t that be a fresh 4 years? Just a thought.
I like how the statute of limitations is convenient for the government but not the citizens. Clown world.
I Truely hope someone steps up. This is scary to do your name be up front and open. But this is important legal battle. If we win this could we not challenge the 943.0435 on ours again? Possibly?