Appellate Brief Filed in Miami-Dade SORR Case
The ACLU and Legal Services of Greater Miami, who represent the John Doe plaintiffs living homeless in Miami-Dade County because the Sex Offender Residency Restrictions (SORRs) restrict their housing options so drastically, have filed their Appellate Brief in the Appeal yesterday.
Miami-Dade SORRs have been notorious for creating colonies of transient persons required to register. Most recognized was the encampment of more than 100 persons living under the Julia Tuttle Causeway between Miami Beach and Miami. Because of a County-Wide 2500 foot exclusion zone and a concentrated population, very few areas of unrestricted residential real estate is compliant. Within those small pockets of availability there are even fewer affordable residences and that number is further reduced by landlords that are actually willing to rent to someone on the registry and the strong competition for available housing.
The lawsuit began in 2014. The registrants lost at the trial court and appealed to the 11th Circuit, where they won! The case was remanded back to the same Federal District Court, where they lost again and now it’s back on appeal to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, where it will hopefully win again. The process is long and frustrating, but it’s important to all who are reading this to keep in mind that nothing that we are going through is as tough as the 100+ people who are STILL living homeless in Miami-Dade because of this SORR.
As we head into the broiling summer months, with the rainy and hurricane season approaching. It’s important to remember why this case is so important.
Thanks to the ACLU, Legal Services and their teams who have been working so hard on this case.
To read the Appellate Brief, CLICK HERE
Discover more from Florida Action Committee
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Unless the state can Prove that all of these hundreds of people have been verified to be an immediate and constant threat, then the state has NO right to banish these people.
Of course, if they were an immediate and constant threat then they likely still would have been incarcerated.
I’m so glad this case is proceeding. I recently visited Miami and was appalled by the contrast between rich and poor. Some areas resemble third-world $hith0les. I only wish SCOTUS would man-up and decide Gundy!
Thank God it’s in the 11th circuit appellate court. No way to win in Miami-Dade County federal courts, why who knows? But will pray that’s 11 circuit get it right this time! I’ve been involved with the homeless camp for a while when I was in Florida. I know what those poor guys are going through. It’s Criminal what Miami-Dade County is doing to them ! And remember the evil person Ron Book that created this mess………!
Several of the people at the railroad tracks are back in prison one of them is back in prison for having a dirty urine for pot. Three more years ! Tell me how to justify the money the State of Florida is paying to house him for 3 years for smoking pot. Makes no sense to me !
So correct me if I am wrong. The residency ordinance is for ownership? Or is the residency ordinance for sleeping over night? Or is the residency ordinance a daytime ban?
This is an important question and in my opinion here is why. If it is an ownership restriction then why does it not match the statute 1000′ rule and how can they apply it backwards when the statute does not statewide. If it is a daytime time restriction then its not plausible because the RSO could be working from 8 am to 5 pm. Lastly, if it is a sleeping restriction are not most daycares, schools, and other places like that closed after 6?
Seems to be vauge and over reaching with a lot of what ifs. and for sure not the least restrictive way to have a residency restriction.
My understanding is that it’s a restriction on where they spend the night. A few of them own homes that they are free to return to during the day. None of which makes sense, as you point out.
If our side wins again can it be appealed yet again by the county?
All this money the county is spending to purposely keep people homeless. Disgusting.
Yes, I agree that this is by far the most punitive and overwhelmingly oppressive part of the state’s sex offender containment policy. Its insidiousness dwarfs most everything else. Many courts, including the supreme courts of multiple states (such as Ohio and Indiana, certainly not known as bastions of liberalness) have found SORRs to be punitive in effect. Those courts have found that residency restrictions are similar to the ancient punishment of banishment and are excessive with respect to their supposedly remedial purpose. I’m sure all of that and much more is included in the appellate brief. Let’s keep our fingers crossed.