Author: FAC Contributor #6

Weekly Update #11 Dear Members and Advocates, On our site this week we featured some reminders to registrants. There is a distinction between ‘probation violations’ and ‘registration violations’. For one, conditions of your probation need to be complied with in addition to conditions of registration. Also, conditions of probation may differ from one registrant to another, while registration requirements are

Weekly Update #10 Dear Members and Advocates, As we begin a new year and the FAC family continues to grow, it’s a good time to remind all members of our Member Code of Conduct and some general principles for dealing with the public. The Member Code of Conduct can be found here (towards the bottom of the page) and is

Weekly Update #9 Dear Members and Advocates, Today, a new administration will be sworn in to govern our State. Ron DeSantis will become Florida’s 46th governor and his arrival will have an immediate impact on the State. Because three of our seven state Supreme Court justices are required by law to retire this week, he will be the one to

Weekly Update #8 Dear Members and Advocates, Happy New Year! 2019 promises to be an exciting year for sex offender reform advocacy. Two lawsuits we have spearheaded are in litigation; the “Ex Post Facto Plus” suit and the “In Person” challenge. A third, challenging registration of out of state individuals, will hopefully be filed in the coming months. In the

Weekly Update #7 Dear Members and Advocates: Sorry this is coming to you a little late in the week but there’s lots to report this week. The “In Person Challenge” was filed yesterday afternoon. The lawsuit challenges the requirement that persons required to register MUST report IN PERSON to register things like vehicle changes or travel of 3 or more

Dear Members and Advocates, Yesterday, the Supreme Court of the United States denied certiorari in Boyd v. Washington, a case out of Washington that challenged in-person registration.  Had the Supreme Court chosen to hear the case, our “in-person challenge” would have been argued for us. The fact that it won’t be heard by the SCOTUS means that our “in-person challenge”