Bad decision on branded driver’s licenses in Florida
A very disappointing decision came out of the 5th DCA on Friday in a branded driver’s license case. An en banc (entire panel of the 5th District Court of Appeals) affirmed the conviction of a man who had covered the “sexual predator” stamp on his Florida driver’s license. The man made the same argument that several others had made, that being forced to display “Sexual Predator” on a driver’s license is compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment. Unfortunately the 5th DCA didn’t agree with other courts and affirmed his conviction.
We will post more about this concerning decision after it’s fully unpacked (it’s 92 pages), but wanted to get it out to you quickly.
Crist v State – Drivers licenses
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This holding may embolden the Florida legislators to propose legislation making the markings even more distinguishable as they attempted two years ago. They may even try to re-introduce proposed legislation that would require PFR’s to have brightly colored licensed plates on their vehicles. We should really keep an eye on the upcoming session.
There was actually a comment in the court’s opinion (I think in one of the concurrences) about how license plates are different from driver’s licenses since they are always publicly viewable and therefore probably constitute compelled speech, whereas a driver’s license is generally only displayed when identification is required and therefore does not. One of the concurring opinions also pointed out the heightened public interest in making others aware of a person’s status as a SP versus a SO. But yes, I do share your concerns.
@Kyle
If they make us have a license plate that states we are offenders, two things will happen. #1, I will start riding my bike instead, and #2 we can file the largest lawsuit ever on the grounds of compelled speech. To out someone on a license plate brings all kinds of trouble like having your vehicle vandalized, even more harassment from law enforcement, and even a chance of death by vigilantes.
It is one thing to have to have a driver’s license with a marking on it only shown a few times a month or less, but a license plate is seen by everyone on the road who is behind you. Just takes one idiot with a gun to shoot us while passing by. Brings up thoughts of Lepers and outcasts from the past that was supposedly done away with decades, or even centuries ago.
They had a ready-made constitutional analysis that was provided for them by the Supreme Court, but since that favored Crist, the majority seems to have opted to become amateur historians to mine for factoids that would support their pre-ordained conclusion and create a whole new constitutional analysis on the issue, contrary to every other single court in the country, including SCOTUS, to which they are ostensibly bound. Which, by the way, as the dissenting opinion notes, no party raised, briefed, or argued the issues they relied on.
Kind of impressive, in a way. I know in this field of litigation you often see opinions replete with all sorts of gymnastics to get to a preferred outcome, but this is some next level stuff in my humble opinion.
5th DCA has completely got this wrong. Here is my take: Crist was wrong to Hide/deface his Driver’s License that is a clear violation of law. However, the verbiage, “Sexual Predator” is clearly compelled speech and that is or should be clear for the overwhelming case precedent already set. I am against even the statue number being on the front of the license.
1. It does not serve a purpose for LE. It does however cause scrutiny for the holder when they: Go to the Doctor, the bank, the hospital to visit a family member or friend, getting into certain establishments; none of whom need to know that the individual has a label. Should a bank know if that person in their bank had robbed a bank before?
2. The 5th DCA also is mistaken in its analogy of the other information on the License such as Name, Address, D.O.B, Expiration date; of which have no reputation concerns for the holder of the license. The aforementioned are not and would not to an average person cause a negative opinion about the holder. Here is where the line is crossed. Putting the statue number and / or verbiage has the ability to cause harsh treatment, discrimination and unfounded concern towards the holder of the license.
Hopefully this gets back to the 11th Circuit and corrects the lower court, not on the defacing/displaying issue but the verbiage itself.
It does not go to the 11th CCOA, but stays within the state system for further consideration if they choose.
The only gaving grace is that it is a state appellate level ruling but keep in mind that JOKElahoma, like FloriDUH, is doing all they can to keep the marks on their cards too.
It’s the 5th DCA. What did you expect? There’s no shocker here.
If it took them 92 pages, then you know it’s full of a HUGE amount of linguistic gymnastics and a complete misapplication of law.