This Call To Action has been superseded. Comments are now disabled.
CLICK HERE FOR THE NEW CTA
HB 1085 Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles FILED by Patt Maney (Part of Okaloosa)
SB 1224 Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles FILED by Senator Danny Burgess
HB 1085 would require color or markings of licenses for the operation of motor vehicles or identification cards for people designated as sexual predators under 775.21 or as sexual offenders under 943.0435 or 944.607. Their license/identification card “shall have ALL PERSONAL INFORMATION printed on the front of the license or identification card in THE COLOR RED.”
Specifically, the following will be required to be on licenses/identification cards in THE COLOR RED by July 1, 2023:
For people classified as a “sexual predator”: the marking “SEXUAL PREDATOR”
For people classified as a “sexual offender”: the marking “943.0435, F.S.”
“A sexual offender or sexual predator who is asked by a law enforcement officer, school resource officer, school official, day care operator, or government official to present his or her driver’s license or identification card must completely remove the license or identification card from the place in which it is stored or contained and present the license or identification card to the law enforcement officer, school resource officer, school official, day care operator, or government official without any of the colors or markings required under subsection (3) being obscured or hidden.”
See lines 116 – 144 of HB 1085.
For SB 1224, the concerns are lines 135-163. This bill requires “SEXUAL PREDATOR” AND “943.0435” to be RED on registered citizens’ drivers’ licenses.
What needs to be done:
Please call, email, or send letters through the U.S. Mail to Representative Patt Maney, the author of this bill. You will need to state your name and that you oppose this part of Bill 108 – Lines 116-144 that address the markings on the license or ID.
If you happen to be a constituent (or supporter) of Representative Maney, let him know that. You do NOT need to state that you are on the registry if that is your particular situation.
This bill has been moved to the House Transportation & Modals Subcommittee with no scheduled meeting at this time.
If you call and voicemail picks up, state your name and that you oppose HB 1085. If time permits, give a brief reason(s) why you oppose the bill. The aides say that they do listen to the voicemails.
| Representative Patt Maney 214 House Office Building 402 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Fl 32399-1300 |
850-717-5004
|
Referred to House Committees: 1) Transportation and Modals 2) Infrastructure and Tourism 3) Infrastructure Strategies |
| Senator Danny Burgess 412 Senate Building 404 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1100 |
850-487-5023 | Referred to Senate Committees: 1. Transportation (TR) 2. Appropriations Committee on Agriculture, Environment, and General Government (AEG) 3. Fiscal Policy (FP) |
NOTE: If you are willing to voice opposition to lines 116-144 in HB 1085 and are NOT a registered citizen, family member/friend of a registrant, or do NOT live in Florida, share you concern that such a barbaric law could be passed in the state of Florida as you do not want to see something like this come to your state. You see Florida as a fun, carefree state to visit and will not support a state that violates the rights of any of its citizens “just because they can do so.” Or as a citizen of Florida, you are ashamed that Florida would continue to punish people who have served their sentence and are now law-abiding citizens. Nothing has happened to make this proposed bill (lines 116-144) necessary. I do not want my state to base laws on myths and emotions. I want to be in a state that bases laws on research-based facts.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS TO BE CONTACTED
Senate Bill 1224: Not assigned a committee at this time but contact the author of the bill:
Senator Danny Burgess 850-487-5023 [email protected]
House Transportation & Modals Subcommittee for HB 1085:
| Fiona McFarland (Chair) | (850) 717-5073 | [email protected] |
| Tom Fabricio | (850) 717-5110 | [email protected] |
| Yvonne Hayes Hinson | 850-717-5021 | [email protected] |
| Robert Alexander Andrade | (850) 717-5002 | [email protected] |
| Kristen Aston Arrington | (850) 717-5046 | [email protected] |
| Douglas Michael Bankson | (850) 717-5039 | [email protected] |
| Fabian Basabe | (850) 717-5106 | [email protected] |
| Jervonte Edmonds | (850) 717-5088 | [email protected] |
| Anna Eskamani | (850) 717-5042 | [email protected] |
| Tiffany Esposito | (850) 717-5077 | [email protected] |
| Jennifer Harris | (850) 717-5044 | [email protected] |
| Vicki L. Lopez | (850) 717-5043 | [email protected] |
| Lauren Melo | (239) 417-6270 | [email protected] |
| Kiyan Michael | (850) 717-5016 | [email protected] |
| Angela Nixon | (850) 717-5013 | [email protected] |
| Juan Carlos Porras | (850) 717-5119 | [email protected] |
| David Smith | (850) 717-5038 | [email protected] |
| Paula A. Stark | (850) 717-5047 | [email protected] |
Talking points – These are Facts that can be supported by evidence, studies and research
- There are currently 52 registry requirements for people on the sex offense registry. Every Florida legislator should have received a copy of the timeline of these registry requirements that started off with 3 in 1997 and have grown to 52 by 2020. Failure to fulfill any of these requirements could lead up to 5 years of imprisonment, even for the thousands of Florida registrants who are now law-abiding citizens.
- The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Louisiana’s appeal of a decision against its 2006 law requiring that people on the sex offense registry have their driver’s license or identification card marked with “SEX OFFENDER” in orange letters. The Louisiana Supreme Court said the marking was compelled speech and could not be justified by the state’s interest in protecting public safety.
- In 2019, a federal judge struck down Alabama’s sex offense registration law that required registrants to carry a driver’s license or official ID with “CRIMINAL SEX OFFENDER” emblazoned in red.
- While there is no research showing a need for this bill (lines 116-144), there is an abundance of research showing that the sexual recidivism rate for people with a past sex offense is lower than that for all other crimes, with the exception of murder.
- Research has shown that at least 90% of FUTURE sex crimes will be committed by people NOT on the registry.
- The first-of-its-kind meta-analysis study of 25 years of findings of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification (SORN) evaluations and their effects on recidivism was published in 2021. Eighteen research articles including 474,640 formerly incarcerated individuals were used. (Journal of Experimental Criminology, “The effectiveness of Sex Offender Registration and Notification: A meta-analysis of 25 years of findings”, Kristen M. Zgoba and Meghan M. Mitchell, September 2021)
- Some of the findings of the above-mentioned study: (1) The sex offense registries have had no effect on sexual and non-sexual crime commission over their periods of existence, thereby failing to deliver on the intention of increasing public safety; (2) Public safety could likely be maximized by focusing limited resources on the highest-risk individuals, rather than utilizing a one-size-fits-all law; and (3) It is time that we work as an empirically informed community, unhindered by emotion, to find a solution to reining the “horse back into the barn”, i. e., reining in the numerous sex offense registry statutes.
Talking points – Personal Opinions
If you choose to state a personal opinion, use respect when delivering what you intend to be a common sense remark and that is not intended to be received as an attack on the legislator(s). The intent is to get them to think through their bill and the consequences, giving them scenarios that they may not have considered.
- The proposed bill states: “A sexual offender or sexual predator who is asked by a law enforcement officer, school resource officer, school official, day care operator, or government official to present his or her driver’s license or identification card must completely remove the license or identification card from the place in which it is stored or contained and present the license or identification card to the law enforcement officer, school resource officer, school official, day care operator, or government official without any of the colors or markings required under subsection (3) being obscured or hidden.”
- Doesn’t law enforcement require EVERYONE to remove their license from its holder and hand it to them?
- Why is this specific to a law enforcement officer, school resource officer, school official, day care operator, or government official when the DL/ID is used for much more like cashing a check, boarding a plane, visiting in a hospital, buying a car and much more?
- Is it only law enforcement officer, school resource officer, school official, day care operator, or government official that are unable to read the markings in black?
- What if the reader is color-blind, will this matter to them, will they be less safe?
- How many draconian registry requirements does it take for Florida Legislators who are using these simply to get votes?
- This was all done by Louisiana to impose additional punishment on registered citizens under the guise of “regulation”.
- Lawsuits are sure to follow if lines 116-144 are kept in HB 1085.
- Where is the research to show that this bill will make society safer? There is no such research.
- What has happened that would cause a Florida house member to propose such an additional restriction on the thousands of registrants on our state registry who are now law-abiding restrictions?
- Being on the registry is for life in Florida, which is one of only three states that have such a requirement. If this bill passes, there are people who “mooned” their high school classmates, juveniles who texted nude photos to other juveniles, 22-year-olds who had consensual sex with their 17-year-old girlfriend/boyfriend and married them after release from prison, people with dementia or autism who unknowingly committed a sex offense, and the list goes on and on, who will be punished the rest of their lives because of this bill if it passes.
SPEAK UP – Make the phone calls and let them hear from you, a Florida Taxpayer, that the action in the lines we oppose are a waste of our tax dollars and have no impact on public safety. STOP the shaming tactics.
This Call To Action has been superseded. Comments are now disabled.
CLICK HERE FOR THE NEW CTA
PICK UP THE PHONE AND CALL EACH OFFICE. Phone calls are very effective. It is most likely that an Aide will answer your call, or it will go to voicemail. The Aides are conveying the number of calls to the Representatives, letting them know if there is support or opposition.
In the most professional manner, state that you oppose the Red Lettering, question why this is needed (based on what evidence or simply a personal assumption of risk?), give your name and phone number. Let them know if you are a constituent.
Every call documented is considered by the representative as the voice of 100 voters.
You will see that the House today added this bill to the Transportation & Modals Subcommittee agenda.
If your representative sits on this committee, this would be a particularly good time to reach out to them. Let them know there is opposition, give them some skepticism, and with luck this bill won’t make it OUT of this committee!
Thank You,
Jacob
PCS for HB 1085 filed 3/13/2023 requires ENTIRE FRONT OF DRIVER LICENSE OR ID TO BE PRINTED IN RED. First committee meeting is in Transportation & Modals Subcommittee on 3/15/2023 @3:00 P.M.
https://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=77877
Lines 805-814
“…shall have printed in the color red all information otherwise required to be printed on the front of the license or identification card…”
https://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Documents/loaddoc.aspx?FileName=PCS%20for%20HB%201085.DOCX&DocumentType=Proposed%20Committee%20Bills%20(PCBs)&Session=2023&CommitteeId=3250
I composed a letter and emailed a copy to each representative and senator listed.
I don’t have high hope for them even reading it when I immediately received two automated responses saying due to the high volume of emails we will be in touch soon. Right.
All the debate about what is more obvious and what’s not is all hog wash in my opinion. Someone sees an unknown inscription on your license , it takes about 15 seconds to google it to find out what that means. Then they tell everyone they know and if they ever see it again they know. So it really doesn’t make much difference in today’s world. The term behind it is the main problem. Sex offender is a miss understood term and must be changed. It’s insulting and offensive and inappropriate and wrong.
email address for Rep. Patt Maney was left out. It is: [email protected]
Thank you, Ryan.
‘A symbol, code, or a letter designation would inform law enforcement that they are dealing with a sex offender and thereby reduce the unnecessary disclosure to others during everyday tasks.’
But can the state print your info in red? The court has not addressed that, have they?
So question? If I get pulled over for a headlight out and I hand the sheriff my license and registration and he goes back to his computer and punches in my name etc. Does it show that I have a sex offense conviction? If it does why does my license need a mark. The bank teller has no need to know of my offense 30 years ago. If I was a convicted bank robber would that be in my license,no. But one could argue that the banker teller should know. My point being law enforcement already knows when they run your plate and or after putting in your DL
A driver hit my car once because he wasn’t paying attention to me backing into my driveway. The police arrived to take a report and I gave him my license while I looked for my proof of insurance. He was in his car running me in the system when I returned with my insurance card and I saw my picture on his computer with red letters above it saying “Registered sex offender”, so yes, the police do see it. By the way, the deputy was cool about it and never brought it up. He was just there to make a report and that’s what he did.
Tearfuleagle
The problem with your evaluation is , you are trying to be logical and base your thoughts on facts. Laws are not made based on either. They are made based on emotion and public image, made for the benefit of the one pushing it.
Facts
Fantastic piece of actionable intelligence from our research person in Tallahassee!! GOOD STUFF!!
I just sent a personal email to each of the representatives and senator listed above.
Here’s what I wrote:
OPPOSE SB 1224 Lines 135-163 – Not Constitutional or Not Evidence Based!
OPPOSE SB 1224 Lines 135-163 – Not Constitutional or Not Evidence Based!
Greetings Senator Danny Burgess,
STOP attacking people like me with unconstitutional and non-evidence based harassment and endless punishments!!
Senate Bill 1224 Lines 135 – 163 perpetuates and expands an endless government assault on me, my family, people that give my work and my friends.
My qualifying offense that put me on a the Florida Sex Offender Registry was over 25 years ago!
I have NEVER been convicted of a crime and have NEVER been to prison!
I have NEVER violated probation or registry requirements!
Why am I still being publicly harassed, character assassinated, constrained with more requirements and kept unemployable by the State of Florida?!?!?
Me and The Florida Action Committee will see you in court!
Yours Truly,
‘By using “CRIMINAL SEX OFFENDER” instead of a single letter, the State [of Alabama] goes beyond what is necessary to achieve its asserted interest…Other states use more discrete labels…Florida [for example] divides offenders into categories: most have a code (“943.0435, F.S.”) on their ID, while a “sexual predator” label is used for the most serious offenders.’ (p. 21)
Are we still certain that this case helps us, or are we determined to make sure the bill doesn’t come out of committee in the first place?
It helps because it can be used to show the law would not pass muster. They can do what they want w/their intent, but they are only spending taxpayer money on a losing effort for political gain. Words are compelled speech regardless of the intent they think is ok
The opinion specifically says that it WOULD pass muster. The only thing it doesn’t address is whether printing in red would still pass muster.
Listing one as a sex predator would most likely fall under the same unconstitutional guise, IMO, because of equal protection for all of those who are required to register and are classified within the state’s registry classifications. Calling out one class with verbiage such as they are proposing is compelled speech even with the inherent safety interest the state says it has in the matter. That is considered profiling and is illegal. This is what you use in the argument today to stop it in committee. Just because one opinion says it would pass muster does not mean it would. You present a different set of facts and very likely (but not 100%) get a different set of judges to review the case the entire way through the process.
If you would please provide the specific opinion page, section, etc, where the opinion says would pass muster, that would be helpful.
State codes are least restrictive and colors could very well fall under the same since it would be a code not every one would be aware of.
Understood, but that’s not what the case law says. You began this discussion by responding to a direct quote from the opinion in question (p. 21). It’s the same opinion referenced by FAC in this very Call to Action. A simple google search should find it.
“school official, day care operator”
But they do not have arresting power!
So question to all. Since we know this coming should we have an injunction already ready to file. We know that this is compelled speech rules on by the LA Supreme Court that the SCOTUS refused to hear the states appeal. SCOTUS themselves ruled on compelled speech in a case out of New Hampshire, Alabama case in 2019 doe v Moore I believe and the 11th circuit in the GA case.
Seems to me the feel good political folks can pass what ever they want but we should be ready when they do.
Yes let’s reach out and try to block it before hand but my hopes are not high with that process
It’s not compelled speech per either of those cases. Different set of facts. That’s why it’s more important to stop it BEFORE it has the chance to become law.
So the Alabama Case involved the verbiage “Criminal sex offender” on the DL this Bill is asking for the words “Sexual Predator”. And the for offenders the statute number. Seems like apples to apples. As far as the the case in SCOTUS with New Hampshire issue was “in God we trust”. On the license plate SCOTUS ruled it was compelled speech because the plaintiff was being forced to carry the states message. This is what the state is asking a SP and to a lesser extent a SO to carry the states message.
The Alabama opinion specifically cited Florida as a reasonable example. “‘By using ‘CRIMINAL SEX OFFENDER’ instead of a single letter, the State [of Alabama] goes beyond what is necessary to achieve its asserted interest…Other states use more discrete labels…Florida [for example] divides offenders into categories: most have a code (“943.0435, F.S.”) on their ID, while a “sexual predator” label is used for the most serious offenders.’ (p. 21)
We may view Alabama and Florida as an apples-to-apples comparison. But the court says otherwise.
Yes, there are some very dangerous people on the registry who have been classified as a SP, but percentagewise, they are low in number.
With that said, though,there are people classified as a “Sexual Predator” who are of no threat to society. In Florida, all it takes to get such a classification is to put your hand between the legs (or the buttock or breasts) and over the clothing of someone under the age of 12, and you can be classified as a SP. This occurrence can be for as little as one second.
Yes, there are prosecutors who would not charge people for doing such as this, but the statutes do allow them to do so. And this includes classifying them as a SP.
If the person being charged happens to have advanced dementia, the statutes do not allow dementia as a defense.
Several of my closest friends are classified as a SP. They are some of the safest people I know to be around.
You’re right, Edication, but that’s not what the Alabama court said— the one we cite in our talking points. That decision does not support our position the way we assume it does.
Why don’t they make our Florida Drivers Licenses like those big 3X5 foot human billboard signs like men used to walk around with looking for work and advertising things in the depression.
They could have the front of our licenses in big 12 inch red print on our chests and the back of your drivers licenses in big red letters so people could see the dangerous sex offenders coming a mile away…?
They could even make our license plates cover our hoods and trunks as to alert people. Maybe 4 by 6 foot plates in red letters….
I just added their name and copied all the data we have in this post. If he and his associates can actually read and assess scientific and logical facts then …. maybe…
I am not a lawyer, but isn’t there something in law somewhere that says “convicted felons are not required to carry the states message” I heard that early in our movement like in 2007 or somewhere around there.
And so it continues. The scarlett letters for all to see that we are demons. Thanks Florida the state that bans books, doesn’t want children to know that white folks OWNED black folks. You can’t tell anyone about being gay, the only thing the governor is missing is his “woke” hitler mustache.
In Florida, it’s all about “protecting and saving children” EXCEPT from poverty, guns drugs and America’s ugly history.
And except from landing on the Florida sex offense registry for life! These are children whose brains have not fully developed, including the part that deals with judgment.
I just sent this to all the Individuals on the list:
I am writing to you today to oppose the above Bill regarding permanent identifies on a Florida Driver’s License or Florida ID Card for those individuals that are on the Sex Offender Registry (SOR).
First, I was in Law Enforcement over 20 years and am now retired and doing other Investigative type work. I have lived in Florida most of my life and think this is a great state and has a lot to offer. I am not going to go into long and dreaded details, or quote statistics on Sex Offenders. One of my best friends, also a former Law Enforcement Officer is on the registry for an underage picture that was sent to him form an unknown source. So he was charged with Possession of Child porn.
My friend is a former U.S Marine and we served together and was one of the best Law Enforcement officers on the job.
In life people make mistakes and are not bad or dangerous people, just made a mistake. Being on the registry is difficult enough. He has a family and children and cannot find a decent job because of him being on the registry. He cannot leave for more than 3 days without registering wherever he goes, he cannot go to his son’s school, the restrictions go on and on, there are over 52 restrictions and any one of them when violated will lead to a 3rd degree felony.
Some of these poor people are trying to move on with their lives, why make it more difficult for them to do that. I am going to make this short, because I am sure you will have many other E-mails to read. But I Employ you, as a former Law Enforcment Investigator, Marine and most import a human Being PLEASE do not pass this horrible Bill and ruin families even more. Thank you for your time and consideration.
I already know the answer to this question, but I’m going to ask anyway; is the same thing being done to people who have been convicted of a drinking and driving offense? What about people convicted of credit card theft?
It seems to me that Florida is trying to find a loophole in the compelled speech argument.
Just more harassment, changing colors is supposed to do what ?
Most people know what it means, in black, and this is just another gotcha for the police to arrest you, for not having it in red. Going to DMV, is a nightmare in Broward County you have to wait 1-2 hours just to get inside sometimes as they have closed many drivers license bureau’s, plus paying the fees for a New Driver license. Like we don’t have enough rules to follow….
I have often wondered how far the State has to go in order for judges to see things clearly.
I have also wondered what if the State said, “ok forget all this sex offender stuff, we’re ending the registry and all forms of registration. If you rape or have raped a child in the last 25 years (non-statuatory) we’re putting you in prison for life.” That one specific crime only.
What would our response be then? Forget the obvious legal issues. What if it were presented, rather, as a deal? We’ll end it all but these people are not forgiven, are believed to be a danger to society and will be transitioned into a life sentence.
What say you?
I saw a window decal last week that had a stick figure graphic of a kneeling person and an upright person standing behind him, arm extended. The caption was “shoot your local pedophile”. To use a 007 phrase, this seems like a license to kill. Bad idea on many levels. Naming, shaming and branding.
People who express such views are sometimes harboring secrets of which they are deeply ashamed.
No one’s shooting anybody.
I get that this was meant as a joke but all it takes is one individual to misinterpret this forum
Free speech includes the right not to be forced to publicly express the government’s messages.
Haven’t similar laws been challenged in other states and deemed unconstitutional due to being compelled speech?
There’s no case law holding that a statutory code reference, or the printed color of that reference, is compelled speech.
Even the Federal district court that struck down Alabama’s sex offender license label, speculated that explicitly labelling a subset of registrants (which FL already does) might be constitutional.
I don’t believe the outright labeling of one as a SP would fly as it is not the least restrictive way to annotate the condition being levied on someone and would be found unconstitutional. I’d look at the LA and AL cases for ref (https://www.probationinfo.org/sor-ids/). You cannot label a subset one way and the entire overall group another as it would be an equal protection clause issue, IMO. The gent in Oklahoma who fought this idea did not fight it correctly, but his case could be a lesson learned in what not to do (and he should re-litigate it from the proper angle).
Colors and codes could probably pass legal muster as only those who need to know via least restrictive means, e.g., LE would be able to recognize it, until it becomes public knowledge via the web and then everyone knows.
Agree but the AL case you cite says the opposite.
The color requirement is probably constitutional as its not likely compelled speech. But the requirement to present your ID on demand with no reasonable suspicion is definitely unconstitutional.
Having to present your ID in FL is already constitutional. It won’t be unconstitutional unless someone successfully challenges the requirement in the courts and creates case law.
The DL/ID color requirement would pass muster because in Ohio they use license plates with color coding for those who are DUI convicted persons with current restrictions in place. You will find that online. That is because it is a least restrictive means of getting the message across to LE and maybe others who know the color coding.