Bill containing very concerning changes to registry filed – SB 1932

Yesterday, Senator Ed Hooper filed SB 1932, which is a 100+ page bill making significant changes to the registry. We have not gone through the bill yet, but one glaring and very concerning change is that the State makes it more difficult to petition for removal and now requires that FDLE be noticed on every petition and FDLE plus the State Attorney have an opportunity to oppose.

More to come, but in the interest of getting this to you as quickly as possible, please read through it yourself below.

SB 1932

 

92 thoughts on “Bill containing very concerning changes to registry filed – SB 1932

  • January 11, 2022

    I’ve read the whole thing and I don’t really get what’s that concerning about the bill. The only difference with removal is that now FDLE gets notified, but judges will expect that both they and the state attorney will always object, just like they always object for early termination of probation. That does not mean that judges always deny. In fact, when it is the policy of FDLE and/or the state attorney to automatically object, it makes the objection almost meaningless.

    Yes, the definition of a day as “any part of a day” is problematic and will probably get fixed somewhere along the line. Even if it doesn’t, assuming that we have to register every place we visit for 2 minutes a day 3 or more times a year is an absurd result and clearly not the intent of the bill. Finally, the bill would allow us to register vehicles online. So overall, I don’t see why this is “very concerning.” Someone will have to explain that to me.

    Reply
    • January 11, 2022

      FDLE gives the state a second bite at the apple for removals. They have consistently been ruthless in opposing these when they lack standing. If they have standing, they will get a seat at the table. Separately, the “any part of a day” is HORRIBLE. You cannot assume it is “clearly not the intent of the bill” because (a) the legislative intent is already devoid of any factual basis, (b) all it takes is one deputy to interpret it differently to arrest someone and one judge to agree, and (c) this “part of a day” issue was raised, ad nauseum, to the state many times before and they are fully aware of the concern. If they wanted to address it, it would have been worded differently.

      Reply
      • January 11, 2022

        Many lawmakers trust FDLE. How do we make the case to them that FDLE’s involvement here is unreasonable?

        Reply
        • January 11, 2022

          Man how’s anyones involvement in a free law abiding citizens life and their family’s life ever warranted. They’ve thrown the whole reasonable suspicion thing and right to remain silent out. We’re suspected of doing crimes that haven’t even been committed. This whole things starting to look more and more like entrapment what do you think?

          Reply
      • January 11, 2022

        Problematic language will not fix itself. There must be timely popular opposition such as what FAC assembled the last time this came up.

        Reply
        • January 11, 2022

          Yes, even though my views on this may differ from FAC’s, I will do all within my power, including donating funds and writing comment cards and letters and emails, to try to block it. I understand the concept that we can’t yield one inch of ground without a fight. Otherwise, they will take a mile and a half every time.

          Reply
          • January 12, 2022

            Thank you, RM, for writing letters and emails on this matter. As proven in the past, if the legislators hear from enough people, then they are forced to listen.

  • January 11, 2022

    Florida is like an octopus it has its tentacles all over and I truly wish the octopus would end up in a fishmonger’s net.

    Reply
  • January 11, 2022

    “A day includes any part of a calendar day” is back.

    We thought we killed that, but it won’t die.

    Reply
    • January 11, 2022

      To address the “any part of the day issue” maybe we all should or most of could get every store, establishment etc and bombard the registry with all these establishments being on our registry? Lol just flood the registry with establishments and other places we frequent. After all we can’t be at any two places at the same time. So good luck for LE to locate me if I do flood my registry with every establishment in a 30 mile radius. This would also swamp the entities you’re required to report to. Any part of a day is just asinine. Makes no sense whatsoever. Maybe flooding the registry with establishments and taking up LE time to add these places will be the perfect rebuttal? Lol 😆

      Reply
      • January 11, 2022

        Tim

        I ran out of grocery stores so now I travel from Florida to Alaska to shop LOL . Just kidding, but, this is complete and utter non-sense. One more nail in the coffin for a judge to say “This is punitive in nature”. Why, because on probation we also had to keep a log of everywhere we went.
        Most of us who come on here have done our time decades ago. Have not not been under supervision since 2003. My crime was in 1991. Punitive in nature as it directly correlates and mirrors probation in structure.

        Reply
        • January 11, 2022

          Lol from Floriduh to Alaska… Yes, the Registry does mirror probation. It’s just less supervision. For me the registry is more punitive than probation. Atleast when I was on probation and had a technical violation, my probation was reinstated and was out of jail in about 2 weeks. A technical violation of the registry is 1-5 yrs. I believe it’s 1 yrs minimum mandatory now?

          Reply
          • January 11, 2022

            CherokeeJack

            Did you see Russia while you’ve been in Alaska? Asking for friends who can’t read maps.

      • January 12, 2022

        Tim

        Wouldn’t the sheriff’s office be considered a frequent place registrants go to more than twice a year? Wonder how placing the sheriff’s office would be considered if it were on the registry and for life. Does anyone read things before a bill is submitted or is it ugh whatever sticks let them have it.

        Reply
        • January 12, 2022

          Lmao, hey good point. I’ll mention to add the sheriff’s office on my next visit. This will be my reply to them.. You know? Just to make sure everything is covered, literally everything.

          Reply
  • January 11, 2022

    Copied directly from the bill: Same tired old worn out incorrect and fear mongering verbage as usual…

    sexual offenders who prey on children are
    196 sexual predators who present an extreme threat to the public
    197 safety. Sexual offenders are extremely likely to use physical
    198 violence and to repeat their offenses, and most sexual offenders
    199 commit many offenses, have many more victims than are ever
    200 reported, and are prosecuted for only a fraction of their
    201 crimes. This makes the cost of sexual offender victimization to
    202 society at large, while incalculable, clearly exorbitant.
    203 (b) The high level of threat that a sexual predator
    Florida Senate – 2022 SB 1932
    16-00635B-22 20221932__

    Reply
    • January 12, 2022

      In 2019, I emailed all 160 legislators research from the U. S. Department of Justice debunking the very statements you have quoted. Not a single legislator responded.

      Reply
  • January 11, 2022

    Its almost impossible to petition to get removed now if you add FDLE into the mix it will be totally impossible. Their whole organization is buit around us staying in their control why would they ever let any of us off the list????
    Follow the money to the truth, without a registry they would not have funding or need of positions in their office to keep track of us. No one wants to see the money or their job go away. This passes were done

    Reply
  • January 11, 2022

    It’s an election year folks. Did we expect anything less from our politicians with financial interests in keeping the registry as full as possible?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *