Advocates File Response in Lawsuit Challenging Miami-Dade County’s Unconstitutional [SEX OFFENDER] Residence Restrictions
The ACLU, ACLU of Florida and Legal Services of Greater Miami filed a motion in lawsuit challenging Miami-Dade County’s onerous residence restrictions and its practice of forcing individuals into homelessness
MIAMI, FL – Attorneys from the ACLU, ACLU of Florida and Legal Services of Greater Miami filed a response opposing summary judgment in a lawsuit challenging Miami-Dade County’s ordinance that prohibits former offenders from living 2,500 feet from a school. The lawsuit was filed in October 2014 on behalf of individuals whose offenses occurred before the County enacted the residence restriction and who have been forced into homelessness.
The response filed today includes undisputed evidence that the residence restriction does nothing to protect the public and instead punishes individuals by making it virtually impossible to locate housing. Because stable housing is the most important factor for successfully re-entering society, the residence restriction actually undermines public safety.
“Everyday realities and social science make it clear—residency restrictions are ineffective and unduly harsh,“ stated ACLU of Florida legal director Nancy Abudu. “Rather than advancing public safety, Miami-Dade County’s policy is just our elected officials’ latest attempt at legislating people into endless cycles of homelessness and poverty.”
The County has prohibited these individuals from living within 2,500 feet of a school, which in practice prohibits them from living in 99.9% of available and affordable residential units in the County. In order to work and live, these individuals resort to living in tents or in their vehicles on street corners in the few areas of the County not excluded by the residence restriction. In May 2018, Miami-Dade County closed the largest encampment along NW 71st Street, but the individuals who lived there remain homeless and have relocated to other street corners without running water, electricity, or a restroom.
“This lifelong housing ban is unconscionable. It has essentially exiled these individuals, many of whom are elderly or have severe mental and physical health needs,” said Brandon Buskey of the ACLU’s National Office. “These encampments did not begin until after Miami-Dade implemented a residence restriction, and the problem has only worsened over time. The County created this problem, and the County can solve it now by repealing the law.”
A copy of the response filed today is available here: https://www.aclufl.org/sites/default/files/response_msj_final.pdf
A video documenting the lives of individuals directly affected by the residence restriction in Miami-Dade County is available here:
A map showing the impact of the residence restriction in Miami-Dade County is available here: https://www.aclufl.org/en/file/2643
More information on that case is available here: https://www.aclufl.org/sites/default/files/90-second_amended_complaint.pdf
Discover more from Florida Action Committee
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I agree, by and large, Democrats provide more relief from injustice. That being said, more republicans (1,618,473) voted in the primary than democrats (1,509,960):
Source: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/28/us/elections/florida-primary-elections.html
Without a larger democratic turnout, and/or republicans crossing the aisle, mathematically speaking, Mr. Gillum cannot win.
The only issue I have with this Ex Post Facto claim is that if the court does find that the ordinance is so punitive in effect, negating the the Counties remedial intent, it will only provide relief to those whose conviction occurred before its enactment, allowing to County to continue to illegally “PUNISH” those who have been convicted after its enactment.
The State of Floridas’ Constitution prohibits the Counties from imposing punishment or imposing any remedial sanction in which it clearly preempts. The State has denied preempting the Counties from establishing there own SORRs. The Question as to whether the State Statute is remedial or punishment has yet to be addressed.
Any honest judicial review of fl statute 775.215 would find it an act to punish, not merely remedial. Secondly, if a Federal Court should find the effects of the county ordinance so disabling to consider it a punishment and the County is prohibited by State Constitution to “Punish”, than its ordinance should be repealed completely.
allowing to County to continue to illegally “PUNISH” those who have been convicted after its enactment.
allowing “the” County to continue to illegally “PUNISH” those who have been convicted after its enactment.
better to proof read before sending.
Ben and JEV,
i fully understand what your saying, but, please point out the last time ANY politician DEM or REP voted AGAINST a new SO law or ordinance.. from what i can see, most ALL are passed unanimously. not picking side s here, but the GOP at least is honest, they say they what more stringent SO laws, they DEM always yell we want reform, then whisper (for everyone accept RSO’s )
Realizing the sensitivities of taking a position on anything political or religious, we need to respect each other’s points of view.
There is a HUGE disparity between the two gubernatorial candidates in FL. Looking at their platforms as individuals (not even as members of their parties), it’s clear that one would overwhelmingly be better for us (I’ll avoid saying which).
I disagree somewhat on the “they are all the same” argument. Charlie Crist restored the voting rights of 150,000 ex-offenders in four years. Jeb Bush (who was Republican) restored 75,000 in eight years. Rick Scott; fewer than 3000 in 8 years! Even though Jeb was a republican, he restored voting rights of 25 times more people! That’s still not great compared to Charlie Crist’s 100x as many, but better than Rick Scott.
That’s insane!
When Crist was asked about the growing encampment under the Tuttle Causeway, he replied “It seems “they” are trying to comply the Counties ordinance”. I believe he supported a uniform Statewide law rather than a patch work of County ordinances but lacked the political support to push it.
We have to vote out all GOP candidates and we must support a new Government that will dismiss non violent cases and stop unconstitutional harrasement of the homeless. JEV
It certainly points out the frustrations faced by appellate attorneys. Takes forever for an appeal to even be looked at by the courts. I’m glad that the ACLU is more concerned with what is right than with what is politically correct at the time.
I believe that part of the platform Andrew Gillum is running on is scientific based law for the state. So if he is elected as governor and we have enough Democrats as long as hers in the state it would be really interesting to see how that argument of his currently plays out in the long term for our cause.
Lauren Book is a democrat correct? I agree with the FAC reply