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.
Notice how these 2 bills exclude registrants who are dropping off their own children in school. So this means that they know many registrants have children of their own that they care for – but yet, they don’t care at all about the children of registrars, which by the application of these bills, can be uprooted from their stable homes and thrown into chaos. This is the absurd hypocrisy of these politicians.
Pre 10/01/2004 you mean ?
As always, it’s confusing —
Just want to remind everybody on here to give thoughts and prayers to the homeless who may not have any place to stay while we experience historic low temperatures. The news is stating we will be getting temps not seen since 1936, and winds that could reach tropical storm levels at times.
These temperatures if reached, are not survivable for the elderly, sick and those with poor health. And even healthy people outside could experience irreversible frost bite. In some spots, it will feel like minus degrees, YES in Florida.
As bad off we all think we have it, it could be worse as most of us typing on here at least have a place to stay warm. And those who cannot afford heat in their home, make a plan as it is going to be a tough few days.
Nice write up Jack and you’re correct. Unfortunately if this new bill passes, there will be many more homeless 😞
Great point – Agree.
Hi FAC.
I saw where you had put all the Senators and House members emails. Have with help crafted this email to send.
Subject: Please Vote NO on SB 212 – Constitutional and Practical Concerns
Senator,
My name is Steve, and I am a Florida resident writing to respectfully urge you to vote NO on SB 212. While I understand and support the goal of protecting children, this bill—despite its intentions—creates serious constitutional, legal, and practical problems that will not enhance public safety.
1. The Ellingburg Decision Directly Undermines SB 212
The recent Ellingburg decision reaffirmed that when a state law imposes punitive effects—especially through residency or presence restrictions—it crosses the line into unconstitutional punishment. The court emphasized:
Restrictions must be narrowly tailored
They must be supported by empirical evidence
They cannot impose broad, lifetime disabilities unrelated to individualized risk
SB 212 fails these tests. It creates sweeping restrictions based solely on status, not conduct or risk, and does so without evidence that such restrictions improve safety. Ellingburg makes clear that laws like this are vulnerable to being struck down, exposing the state to litigation and taxpayers to unnecessary costs.
2. SB 212 Creates Confusion and Enforcement Problems
The bill’s definitions—particularly regarding “child safety zones,” “areas where children regularly congregate,” and the 200‑foot measurement language—are vague and inconsistent. Even law enforcement agencies have expressed difficulty interpreting similar language in the past.
A law that officers cannot reliably interpret is a law that cannot be fairly enforced.
3. SB 212 Punishes People Who Are Already Fully Compliant
Many Florida residents have lived offense‑free for decades, have stable homes, families, and employment, and pose no risk to the community. SB 212 would:
Disrupt stable housing
Create homelessness
Increase instability
Every major study shows that housing instability increases risk, not decreases it. SB 212 unintentionally undermines the very safety it claims to promote.
4. Florida Already Has Some of the Strictest Laws in the Nation
Florida’s existing registration, reporting, and supervision requirements are already extensive. Adding additional restrictions without evidence of benefit is unnecessary and counterproductive.
5. SB 212 Will Not Improve Public Safety
Research from the U.S. Department of Justice, multiple state agencies, and independent criminologists consistently shows: Presence restrictions do not reduce offenses against children. Most offenses are committed by family members or trusted individuals, not strangers in public places. Stability—not exclusion—is what reduces recidivism. SB 212 is not evidence‑based policy.
6. The Bill Will Almost Certainly Face Constitutional Challenge
Given the Ellingburg ruling and similar decisions across the country, SB 212 is likely to be found unconstitutional. Passing a bill that is almost guaranteed to be litigated wastes taxpayer dollars and creates false expectations for the public.
For these reasons, I respectfully ask you to vote NO on SB 212. Florida needs laws that are constitutional, evidence‑based, and truly effective—not policies that create instability, confusion, and legal vulnerability.
Thank you for your time and your service to our state.
Sincerely,
Nice letter my friend, I’m off work in a couple days and be damn sure I’m getting on my computer and sending out emails!
Thank you for the factual letter as I am having a hard time coming up with one without emotions tied to it. I will definitely be using this as a basis and adding to it.
This is a crucial call to action, but we must highlight that HB 45 and SB 212 do not exist in a vacuum. They are the physical components of a much larger digital dragnet being established through the 2026 legislative session.
While HB 45/SB 212 expands “proximity bubbles” to include nearly every body of water in Florida, it is the interlocking nature of these bills with SB 482 (the AI Bill of Rights) that creates a truly unprecedented constitutional crisis. By codifying “Machine Inference,” the state is moving to replace human “reasonable belief” with proprietary algorithms. This framework effectively establishes “Automated Probable Cause,” where a machine-generated alert—without a human witness or officer observation—can satisfy the requirement for a warrantless felony arrest.
When you combine “strict liability” (no intent required) for being within 200 feet of a broad “public bathing place” with a “Black Box” AI witness that cannot be cross-examined, you create an invisible minefield. This isn’t just a registry issue; it is a fundamental shift in the Fourth Amendment where high-tech efficiency is being prioritized over structural checks on executive power.
We must urge legislators to look at the “government exemptions” in the AI legislation that allow this surveillance to function without transparency. If these bills pass together, Florida becomes a testing ground for automated arrests and the end of individualized suspicion.
I have prepared a comprehensive legislative brief mapping these statutory “handshakes” and “black box” vulnerabilities, which is available for immediate dissemination to advocacy groups, legal teams, and policy directors.
One last comment, I promise. I plan on sending my previous note but plan on following up with a specific comment and question.
SB 212 establishes a 200 foot exclusion zone for certain individuals around pools, parks, waterways. The way the legislation is written, it includes creating retroactively applied exclusion zones involving private property around these areas, meaning private property owners identified in the legislation would lose all access to property, including vacating such property, that they own within the exclusion zone, regardless of when they obtained the property.
The question is the following. Does such a statute violate the “takings clause” of the Florida constitution by retroactively denying access to private property owned by individuals listed in the proposed statute.
Specifically Article X, Section 6 of the Florida constitution, commonly called the takings clause, recognizes both direct physical takings of property and regulatory takings where regulations go too far.
Similarly, the Bert Harris Jr. Private Property Act provides a mechanism for property owners to seek relief when a specific government action, while not a total taking, inordinately burdens land use.
I can’t think of more of an inordinate burden of land use than denying access to property owners who are identified under what the government constantly claims is a regulatory scheme and not a criminal one.
Thanks
Vic, by your understanding, would registrants be banned from working in hotels? I do maintenance for 4 hotels and work directly for the owner. Each hotel has a pool.
Look at lines 59-150 of the Senate bill. Line 73 begins with “hotels.” Lines 149-150 address visiting or being within 200 feet.
The entire bill is available here: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2026/212/BillText/c1/HTML
Can a class action suit be brought up againist the State of Florida due to this new Supreme Court ruling concerning Ex facto for a pre 1992 pfr? That paid restitution? Is that possible? Any thoughts would help. Or give a glimer of hope, as to what to do now?
So I ask again. Are they trying to uproot registrants from their own home that have been in the registry for decades and are not under supervision and live near one of these water places that they are restricting.?
This subsection applies to any person convicted of a
80 violation of s. 794.011, s. 800.04, s. 827.071, s. 847.0135(5),
81 or s. 847.0145 for offenses that occurred occur on or after
82 October 1, 2004, and before July 1, 2026, excluding persons who
83 have been removed from the requirement to register as a sexual
84 offender or sexual predator pursuant to s. 943.04354.
85 (3)
86 (c) This subsection applies to any person convicted of an
87 offense in another jurisdiction that is similar to a violation
88 of s. 794.011, s. 800.04, s. 827.071, s. 847.0135(5), or s.
89 847.0145 if such offense occurred on or after May 26, 2010, and
90 before July 1, 2026
Basically, this is saying:
1. If you are Pre 10/01/2024 the Residency Requirement does not apply period.
2. If you are on the registry the 200-foot exclusion zone applies.
3. If your offense was between 2004 and July 1 of 2026 You do not have to move. If you do move however then you are subject to the residency requirement.
4. If your offense is after July 1, 2026, then you cannot live with 200 feet of all those places.
FAC If I erred, please correct.
You erred on number 4. The residency restriction is 1000 feet.
I got grandfathered in before the 1000 feet rule came out. So, if I ever moved, it might be harder to find a place to live. But I have lived here for 2 decades, I seem to not be going anywhere.
23 in the same abode Jack. I have deep roots grown in southern ground. Only real issue for me is going to be my gym. It has a pool that I use. All the other places I go I have checked. Just in case.
Interesting but If you can not be within 200 feet of one of those places, how can you live there? That is one of the big issues with this bill. Residency says 1000 feet but proximity says 200. I was thinking about that over the weekend. How will square that? Also Can you point me to the list of emails. It was in one of these posts and my old eyes cant seem to find it lol .
The 1000 foot residency restriction is greater than the 200 foot proximity ordinance. Even if one cannot live within 1000 feet, they can still shop, visit, dine, travel within the 800 feet between their home and the offending landmark.
Most legislators have a contact form on their page, you can search the Florida House and Florida Senate for their forms or you can contact [email protected] if you need a list of contacts.
FAC 3. I missed that LOL. Been a rough day today.
We all need to quit guessing on the semantics of the bill and send out mass emails. The supreme court ruling with Ellingburg should give us a framework on how to form our arguments. Just my opinion 🍻
FAC
So, if there is a 7-11 right next to a school you are not allowed to stop at the store and get gas? If that is true, a lot of us had no knowledge of this all along. The high school I went to has a 7-11 just 75 feet next to it.
That will become illegal if the Senate bill is allowed to become law as currently drafted.
FAC
So, yet another retro-active punishment, restriction and ban. We all need to start carrying notepads of the numerous things we cannot do, say, be or visit.
Thank you all for answering my concerns and questions about these bills. I’ve used them to draft up a letter to senators and reps which I will be sending. Please feel free to correct any of my statements if I am wrong about the facts.
Dear Senator/Representative XXX:
I write in opposition to Senate Bill 212. While I am opposed to the entirety of the bill, my email focuses on the proposed 200 foot exclusion zone around pools, parks, waterways etc. I understand the original intent may have been to establish a zone in the immediately described areas, however the legislation casts such a wide net that it effects property owners, residents and visitors who have no intention of visiting those areas.
As an example, I am a property owner in a gated, over 55 community with no children permitted except with an adult who lives there. I will no longer be able to use many of the amenities of the community because the locations fall within the 200 foot designated zone of a swimming pool (which by the way requires a community ID and does not allow unsupervised children). Some clubhouse functions would be off limits because of the existence of an indoor pool which means that second and third floor meeting rooms, theaters, movie rooms and exercise rooms, and meeting with service providers because they all fall within the prohibited zone even though they are not on the same floor. Even parking at the clubhouse is effected meaning I can park on one side where there is no indoor pool, but not the other. Again, these restrictions would all be imposed even with a person having no intention of using the pool.
I also believe that there is a real constitutional issue with this bill. The proposed legislation effectively bans property owners from visiting their own properties (not living there, but simply visiting) if the property falls within the exclusion zone. If the owner rents it out, he or she would no longer be able to visit to make repairs or check on tenants, even in an emergency. A designated person would also be prohibited from visiting family if they live on property within the designated areas, including those who are primary care givers or for emergency visits. This may also ban some visits to assisted living facilities, hospitals and VA housing that have pools or parks for their residents.
I don’t believe that the writers of the bill meant to include the types of examples I have provided, but these are the potential real world consequences that you should be aware of. Thank you for your time.
Vic nailed it— an outstanding email that arms skeptics with additional questions to bring up during hearings.