I agree with you wholeheartedly.

A ‘Civil’ regulatory law with a ‘Civil’ penalty should have a ‘Civil’ punishment. I don’t understand on WHAT grounds they can turn a civil infraction into a criminal punishment?

Of course, the problem with this as your main argument is that it does nothing for your clients who were convicted after 2005.

Unfortunately, the State has the right to impose a punishment so long it’s prospectively applied. So long as it gives notice of the consequences when a qualifying offense is committed.

That is the second part of the narrative. “IF”it is determined that 775.215 was intended to punish, than County ordinances would be in violation of the States Constitution which prohibits Counties from enacting punishment for crimes. They have the power to enact regulatory sanctions where the penalty is no greater than a misdemeanor.

Yes, but one of the problems is that we seem to have confusion over “legislative intent.” The STATE ( and a number of the counties) clearly felt that the “enhanced’ lifetime residency restrictions (as opposed to restrictions that ended upon termination of parole/probation) imposed in 2004-2005 would be subject to an ex post facto challenge so they did not impose them. The pre 2005 restrictions were a statutorily mandated special condition of probation which, as we all know, is PUNISHMENT. They were subsequently relocated to the registration section after 2004. What the post 2004 restrictions did was permit a limited expansion by the counties and cities of the exclusion zones. So the State can’t retroactively impose these restrictions, but they have somehow permitted the cities and counties to do so? As best as I can tell, the State has not actually said that this is okay. They have just declined to comment other than saying “state law does not impose any restrictions after sanctions have ended.” Of course, the problem with this as your main argument is that it does nothing for your clients who were convicted after 2005.

Jacob, with all due respect, none of it matters. All that matters is the rule of law and legislative intent. “A statute is an edict of the legislature and the conventional way of interpreting a statute is to seek the ‘intention’ of its maker.”

In the State of Florida a sex offender who fails to comply with the States residency restriction is subject to criminal prosecution which points directly back to the original offense.

All other potential criminal prosecutions the offender may face, such as failure to register, is separate from the original offense and any penalty imposed is for that failure.

This is what separates a regulatory sanction from a criminal penalty. It’s also why the States SORR is applied prospectively, to avoid any conflict with State or Federal constitutions, specifically the Ex Post Facto clause.

Think we are just still hurt and suspect ever since the voting restoration dis. Even they view us as expendable and not on same level.

Sorry about your illness. Still, we’ll defer to the attorneys in our cases.

Whats maddening to me is the focus of the ACLU inquiry. Ex Post Facto inquiries are not about recidivism rates nor the lack of available housing, rather legislative intent. The threshold question is whether the punishment imposed is criminal or regulatory in nature.

Courts will never declare what the legislature deems as remedial as retribution. “Nothing but the clearest proof will survive” (emphasis added)… As soon as the court turns to those highly subjective factors found in Kennedy Mendoza, the case is lost.

All that matters in any Ex Post Facto challenge, (as clearly shown in Kennedy Mendoza), is legislative history, intent and statutory construction.

Note: if I come off sometimes incoherently, its the effects of chemo for treatment and Oxy for pain management.