We often get questions from people who are confused by the application of Packingham (the SCOTUS decision that said Government cannot restrict access to social media) to their situation.
- Packingham benefits people NOT ON PROBATION/SUPERVISED RELEASE. If you are on probation, a restriction on social media/internet access CAN be imposed.
Packingham DOES NOT prevent a private business (ie: Social Media platform) from restricting your access to their platform.
This past week, the Florida 1st DCA (appellate court) did a good job of clarifying the rule for us.in Burnsed v. Florida Commission on Offender Review.
“The law at issue in Packingham applied to sex offenders who had finished serving their sentences, and a violation of the statute was a felony offense. In contrast, the prohibition at issue in the present case was a condition of Petitioner’s conditional release. Federal courts have declined to find that the reasoning in Packingham applies to conditions of supervised release. See United States v. Carson, 924 F.3d 467, 473 (8th Cir. 2019) (citing cases). “
So, Florida is 25 years on registry before you can petition removal.
I know there are other states with 10/15/20 years. Some even less for Youthful Offenders.
Why do we not move to these states? Even if Florida keeps us on theirs, how is it not better to move to another state and NOT have your residence flagged?
To me, that is a HUGE advantage.
Has anyone traveled to Turks and cacios and what was tour experience.
Quite frankly any of you people can still get access but you have to break the rules to do so. The application of Packingham effects speech and IMO justified ignoring the law prohibiting access (ban). Rights are God given and can only be taken by volition. Felons carry guns ban or not. If caught they pay the price but the “if” remains. Too often SCzOTUS rulings are interpreted incorrectly, especially by AGs who tilt what was not made clear to favor the state.
Mr. Scalia stated in DOE03, that Congress could indeed add more regulatory burdens on SOs, but he did not include additional restraint burden onto the already convicted. Of course the state’s added those pains and penalties ex post anyway via their convenient misinterpretation. The Rehnquist court stated ” affirmative disability” would run incongruous to the ex post facto clause when applied after sentence complete.
In 947.1405(7)(a)8 states ”Effective for a releasee whose crime is committed on or after July 1, 2005, a prohibition on accessing the Internet or other computer services until a qualified practitioner in the offender’s sex offender treatment program, after a risk assessment is completed, approves and implements a safety plan for the offender’s accessing or using the Internet or other computer services.”
My offense occurred in 2007. When I was released in 2017, I was told I could not have ANY device capable of accessing the internet until I went through the proper steps. No VCR, no Blue-Ray DVD player, no smart TV, no smart phone, nothing. I was not even allowed to go to the Florida job program and use their computer. On the other hand, my probation officer allowed me to stand over someone and watch them do stuff.
It took me nearly a year and a half before I was able to access the net. At the added expenses of court hearings (I represented myself), travel time, multiple evaluations done by “experts” to determine that I was not a risk on the computer and the requirement that I have installed a “watchdog” program that not only watches what I do online, but also watches what I do offline as well. At my cost, of course.
So, this prohibition is STATUTORY. There is little a judge can do to override it. Or a lowly probation officer. I had a few hiccups as I got used to the program but at least now I can communicate via e-mail to friends and family, do online banking and such, research my ancestry and do job searches. It is a hassle, but it is a world better than having a “dumb” computer that is little more than a word processor.
Oh, by the way, that statute is enforced regardless of whether or not your offense had anything to do with a computer. Mine didn’t. My access cost less than $500, but I know others who have paid several times that.
Again – this is part of PROBATION/CONDITIONAL RELEASE/SUPERVISED RELEASE or any other sanction that’s imposed as part of a sentence. NOT people off probation.
Chapter 947 is titled, “FLORIDA COMMISSION ON OFFENDER REVIEW; CONDITIONAL RELEASE; CONTROL RELEASE; PAROLE”
At what point can I get off of Registration Registry , I was Sentenced is the 1990 did 15 years probation, never been arrested for anything at all ?
Check with your attorney – generally 20 years after you complete all sanctions. If you completed probation in 2005; 2025 you can petition for removal.
Question would this apply regarding the next door website where they are deleting your account if the house hold is registered address on the FDLE. Website?
Yes, exactly! Next door CAN restrict access to their platform.
I am still a little confused. When someone is released from prison and they are listed on the registry, if they are also on probation but nothing is mentioned in their sentence about having limitations on their internet use, can the probation officer still forbid the person from using the internet or put limitations on their usage of the internet (assuming the internet usage follows the laws set up for all individuals)? Particularly if the person is not using social media?
Yes – you should consult with your lawyer about the conditions imposed by a PO.
In this situation, the only internet restriction I can envision would be, don’t use the internet to do something prohibited by the sentence or judgement order. I can’t imagine that there would be an outright ban on using the internet unless the judgment order says so.
You should have a copy of your husband’s order of probation. If not, you can get it from the clerk of courts for a nominal fee. Everything he can or cannot do is in that order.