You mentioned something about not applying to residency in unincorporated areas…… does this law apply to the Lake Ausbery area?

Is there any change in the status of this act?

Don’t worry. This has a stirring within me that I cannot let go of. I am ready and willing to go through any door that God will allow me to go through.

As CMC noted in the other thread https://floridaactioncommittee.org/urgent-sex-offender-shuffle-again/#comment-79945
the law governing the 1,000 ft. restriction started out as 794.065 and was effective for offenses committed on or after October 1, 2004. There was no provision to allow you to stay in your home if you had established your residence before your offense.

“(1) It is unlawful for any person who has been convicted of a violation of s. 794.011, s. 800.04, s. 827.071, or s. 847.0145, regardless of whether adjudication has been withheld, in which the victim of the offense was less than 16 years of age, to reside within 1,000 feet of any school, day care center, park, or playground.”

Nor was there any protection if one of those popped up within 1,000 feet of you.

In 2008, s. 847.0135(5) was added to the list of offenses and was made retroactive to October 1, 2004.

In 2010, s. 794.065 was changed to s. 775.215 and a protection provision was added.

“(2) However, a person does not violate this subsection and may not be forced to relocate if he or she is living in a residence that meets the requirements of this subsection and a school, child care facility, park, or playground is subsequently established within 1,000 feet of his or her residence.”

Also, out-of-state registrants were now burdened by the same restrictions, if the offense was committed on or after May 26, 2010.

There is still no provision in this statute to allow you to stay in your home if you had established your residence before your offense.

That’s right I forgot, the state 1,000’ was the reason. Dammit! this is frustrating even for me, so I can’t even imagine…

Our residence is being rejected because we live within 1000 feet of a school and home with a day care.

The mall is in the unincorporated area.

SarahF, yes any violation of probation conditions nullifies grandfathering protection so you would have to move (into a city I would hope, if feasible) or as Jacob stated, fight it.

The language clearly (to me) suggests grandfathering. I cannot think of a single reason why his residence there would be rejected. Can you?

I read the “unless,” “violation” language to mean that if someone is forced, via a probation violation, to relocate from that residence to jail, they lose their grandfathering. Which then puts you in a position of having to do one of two things. Have your lawyer argue before the judge that what he did was not in fact a violation of probation and that we disagree with the PO. Or, get the commissioner who invoked exemptions on the phone, reminding him of your public discussion and why living in your house is important to husband’s rehabilitation, and ask how can we do this.

I do think that the observation re incorporates areas still matters, because there are no 300’ exclusion zones there. Like, I don’t know whether Orange Park Mall is in unincorporated Clay or in fact in City of Orange Park.

JZ, we do live in the unincorporated area. I was looking yesterday on googlemaps at areas within the city limits of Orange Park, but housing is too limited there. I am still hoping for an exemption.

The part about any violation while on probation eliminating the grandfathering part was not brought up by the commissioners. I doubt that they know it is in there.

“If the residence was established prior to the effective date of this article, unless the sexual offense or a violation of probation for said offense was committed subsequent thereto” — this part is what I do not understand. Does it mean that if you are grandfathered in and have one technical violation on your probation, that you would then have to leave your home if it is within 2000 feet of one of the listed places?