Call to Action: Oppose HB 45 / SB 212 – “Sexual Offenders and Sexual Predators”
HB 45 and SB 212 are dangerous, extreme, and counterproductive. SB 212 would banish more than 30,000 Floridians from “being” within 200 feet of a body of water and both bills would make 80% of Florida uninhabitable, displacing thousands of families from their homes and causing thousands to lose stable employment. These bills undermine public safety by increasing homelessness, instability, unemployment, and monitoring challenges.
The bills will:
- Push thousands into homelessness by making the majority of Florida off-limits for housing.
- Prevent tens of thousands of individuals from ever going to a beach, fishing in a lake or “being” near waterways or swimming pools for life.
- Make supervision harder and reduce public safety.
- Increase the financial burden on Florida through higher incarceration and enforcement expenses and mass unemployment.
- Risk a certain constitutional challenge.
- Do absolutely nothing to meaningfully prevent abuse or protect children!
Evidence is clear: residency restrictions and banishment do not reduce re-offending. They increase instability, homelessness, unemployment and risk.
The Florida Action Committee urges you to contact Florida legislators and urge them to VOTE NO on CS/HB 45 and CS/SB 212.
Protect children through education, prevention, treatment, and effective supervision—not by creating homelessness and chaos.
- The bills seek to expand exclusion zones to banish registrants from living within 1,000 feet of Florida’s 8,426 miles of shoreline along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts; more than 7,700 lakes that are 10 acres or larger (including Lake Okeechobee); over 30,000 other lakes and ponds; approximately 12,000 miles of rivers, streams and canals; and hundreds of thousands of swimming pools. The swimming pool restriction includes apartment complexes, motels, mobile home parks, etc.
- SB 212 creates an expansive proximity ban that would criminalize the mere presence of certain individuals within 200 feet of a wide range of everyday public places, including swimming pools (even if in a residential community or hotel) and beaches, regardless of intent, probation status or whether the offense was committed decades ago.
- Residence restrictions and proximity ordinances “increased isolation, created financial and emotional stress, and led to decreased stability” and reduced housing options for registrants. (Jill S. Levenson & Leo P. Cotter, The Impact of Sex Offender Residence Restrictions: 1,000 Feet From Danger or One Step From Absurd?, 49 Int’l J. Offender Therapy & Comp. Criminology 168 (2005)). Broward County, FL study (N≈109) showed that residency restrictions were associated with increased transience, homelessness, and difficulty securing employment and treatment. The study documents registrants’ self-reports and local enforcement perspectives. (Jill S. Levenson, Collateral Consequences of Sex Offender Residence Restrictions, 21 Criminal Justice Stud. 153 (2008)).
- FDLE research/survey of probation/parole officers in Florida reporting that officers view residency restrictions as a top obstacle to finding housing for supervised offenders; officers linked restrictions to homelessness and recommended risk-tiering and supervised/shared housing as remedies. (Amy L. Datz, Sex Offender Residency Restrictions, Sanity or Inhumanity (research paper), Fla. Dep’t of Law Enforcement (FDLE) (2009)). Homeless people are hard to monitor as they move frequently and are hard to locate (OPPAGA, 2024).
- If the amended statute is challenged, which it almost certainly would be, a Court may find that the exclusion zones are tantamount to banishment. That could result in the entire statute being declared unconstitutional and Florida would be left without any residency restriction.
You can find contact information for all Florida Senators here: https://www.flsenate.gov/Senators
And for all Florida Representatives here: https://www.flhouse.gov/representatives
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Does the House bill have that same proximity language as the Senate bill? And if not, does that mean that at some point they need to be reconciled? Perhaps at least the proximity portion of the bill can be stopped at that stage since it seems all of the proximity language cameup in the Senate version.
I do not see it, Vic
No, it does not contain that language, and yes, it will need to be reconciled. There have been several amendments to these Bills, so we need to keep writing the lawmakers.
So if it has been 25 years since your offense as a youthful sex offender, non violent, but still registers each year as does not have the finances to afford an attorney, this would still apply as well?
Thank you for the clarification, and thanks to FAC for all the great work.
As far as the proposed 200 foot exclusion zone, I am listing just some of the most egregious ramifications of the legislation. Feel free to use any of the apply to you.
1. It would effectively eliminate using the water for any means of work, transportation, or recreation. No using a water taxi, clearly no swimming or fishing, no boating, no working on boats.
2. It eliminates the use of public roads and sidewalks, , ie, A1A along the beach. Additionally, it would appear that any visit to a beachside or lakefront restaurant could be illegal, as would working in those places.
3. How would individuals know if certain bus routes are within 200 yards of a banned area.
4. Some downtown areas would be exclusion zones. Think the river walk in Fort Lauderdale or Jacksonville. Or entire areas surrounding downtown parks.Or how about not being able to attend a Miami Heat because the arena is on the bay.
5. Could there be a ban on visiting barrier islands or the Florida Keys? Roads to the islands pass right over the intracoastal and there is water on either side of US 1 down in the Keys.
6. Limited access, if any access to the ports to pick up relatives and friends,or to work there.
7. No visiting relatives in assisted living, VA homes, or over 55 communities if they have a room that overlooks a pool… even if you are a primary caregiver.
8. Persons living in over 55, private gated communities would no longer be able to use the pools in their communities, or even walk by them, even though they pay fees for themselves, and rarely are children present.
This is just a small list and hopefully you can personalize it and send it to your tep. Such is the harm that this bill can cause.
Vic, thank you for your observations.
As far as 3, 6 or 1 (for transportation) might not be viable, because the proposed statute exempts someone who “Is actively traveling past a location described in subsection (1) while in transit to another destination.” So driving or taking a bus, would not be illegal, just stopping for gas, to grab a bite or visiting someone would be.
As for #7, not only would being a caregiver for someone be off limits, but say you’re hospitalized (Mt Sinai hospital on Miami Beach is right on Biscayne Bay)
So if this passes, I stop for gas and its within 67 Yards of a bus stop, school, pool etc that would be a criminal offense? What about going to a grocery store that may have a bus stop or Day care within 67 yards of the store? I know these are dumb questions, but I wonder how enforcement of these would really be, enforced.
Not sure where you get the “bus stop” part, but below is the relevant text of the bill. Grocery shopping or buying gas is not one of the exceptions to “being” within 200 feet.
134 775.216 Restricted locations for persons convicted of
135 certain sex offenses.—
136 (1) As used in this section, the term:
137 (a) “Child care facility” has the same meaning as in s.
138 402.302.
139 (b) “Park,” “playground,” “public bathing place,” “public
140 swimming pool,” and “school” have the same meanings as in s.
141 775.215.
142 (2) A person who has been convicted of a violation of s.
143 794.011, s. 800.04, s. 827.071, s. 847.0135(5), or s. 847.0145,
144 regardless of whether adjudication has been withheld, in which
145 the victim was younger than 16 years of age at the time of the
146 offense, or who has been convicted of a similar offense in
147 another jurisdiction, regardless of whether adjudication has
148 been withheld, in which the victim was younger than 16 years of
149 age at the time of the offense, may not visit or otherwise be
150 within 200 feet of any school, child care facility, park, public
151 swimming pool, public bathing place, or playground.
152 (3) A person who violates this section commits a
153 misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s.
154 775.082 or s. 775.083.
155 (4) This section does not apply to a person who:
156 (a) Has been removed from the requirement to register as a
157 sexual offender or sexual predator under s. 943.04354.
158 (b) Is actively traveling past a location described in
159 subsection (1) while in transit to another destination.
160 (c) Is dropping off or picking up his or her child or
161 grandchild from a child care facility or school, or is visiting
162 his or her child’s or grandchild’s child care facility or
163 school, subject to the requirements in s. 856.022(4)(b).
164 (d) Is visiting or otherwise within 200 feet of a location
165 described in subsection (1) for the sole purpose of:
166 1. Attending a religious service as defined in s. 775.0861.
167 2. Voting, if such person is present during the hours
168 designated for voting.
169 3. Conducting official business at a local, state, or
170 federal government building.
Awesome clarification I appreciate it. So basically if you shop at a store that may have a Day care within 200 feet, It will appear that you would be safe as you are not loitering there you are shopping. All my kids are grown so the park, schools etc are not even a thought. Can you shed some light on Beaches, Rivers, Lakes etc. Seems to be tripping up people as well.
I disagree with your interpretation. If you are shopping, that’s being. You can pass through an area, just can’t stop and use the amenities.
Others among us have kids, so parks and schools are definitely a thought to anyone reading this.
The entire bill is available here: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2026/212/BillText/c1/HTML I suggest everyone actually read it before posting questions. The definition of swimming pools and public bathing areas is right in there.
I totally hear you but not all of us are versed in or understand legal speak. Sorry for all the questions. I have seen posts on here about hotels, but I don’t see that listed as it’s not a public pool It is private owned by the hotel chain.
I always appreciate you and your analysis for sure. been doing this a long long time and do not want to mess up now. Lastly how does Menes Rea or the “knowingly” verbiage apply. I would think that the state would have to prove that the defendant “knew” about the restricted place.
Look at lines 69-73 of the bill. The first line of 73 is “hotels”
69 limited by a gate or other method of controlling access. The
70 term includes, but is not limited to, pools operated by or
71 serving camps, churches, cities, counties, day care centers,
72 parks, state agencies, schools, subdivisions, apartments,
73 hotels, motels, mobile home parks, recreational vehicle parks,
Additionally, there is no mens rea requirement. Violations of the registry statute are strict liability. There is no knowledge requirement. You cross the 200 foot line, you’re hit. Whether you know the distance or not, whether you know a hotel has a pool or not.
Wow this is going to put massive restrictions. No vacations, even if only 1 night, no conferences for those that their work has them etc. This bill as written has a ton of controversy in it. Ie Line 71 includes churches, but line 166 excludes attending religious services. Lets hope the LEO’s get the whole bill print out not just the first 73 line. LOL. ok not really fun.
As Obi Wan was the only hope for the Rebels, A Does win in July is ours.
What about those who work in hotels? I do maintenance for 4 different hotels with pools.
I’m very confused about the house bill. I thought the amended house bill “grandfathered” in those who are already living in “approved” housing that complied with all residency restrictions and that we would not have to move. In fact there was a lengthy FAC post last year that stated the amendment allowed us to stay in our current residence as long as that residence was in compliance. Is that no longer the case?
I read the language about pools being built after people have moved in, but what about the vast majority who have found stable housing in compliance with all restrictions, but would now be in violation of the proposed law? Are we no longer “grandfathered” in and will have to move?
What an awful mess.
Vic,
I am not an attorney this is just may understanding so do not take it except with a half a grain of salt. The residency retrictions to my reading are this.
1. Pre 2004 Does not effect.
2. 2004 -2026 Jan to June 30th – If you are currently living in one of those restricted areas, you are not going to have to move. However if you do move you get snagged by this bill.
3. July 1st 2026 This bill applies to you as in you will not even be able to live there.
Fac-3 please fix my post if its not accurate.
This is correct as to the residency restrictions. As for the proximity ordinance (a new statute that is created by this bill) it would be retroactive to all, based on the current language of the bill.
Fac-3. What are you thoughts if I attend a gym with a pool and kids area? Or if a store is with 200 feet of a school are those now off limits? The bill is vague to me on this.
Wow, Florida. Yet another grandstanding show of demagoguery proposed with zero credibility or accountability. If the legislators care about facts in the slightest, or if they actually care about public safety, this bill will not pass. It flies in the face of everything we know about risk reduction, and healthy communities.