Last week, Miami-Dade County filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in Does v. Miami-Dade, a challenge to the Sex Offender Residency Restrictions that have caused the notorious encampments of homeless sex offenders.
A Motion for Summary Judgment, in lay terms, is a motion asking the Court to rule that the other party doesn’t have a case. In legal terms, it’s asking the court to determine there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
A copy of the government’s motion can be found here: Does v. Miami-Dade – SORR – Motion Sum Jud
Motions for Summary Judgment are rarely granted and often overturned by appellate courts. Also, this case has already gone up to the 11th Circuit court of appeals and sent back to the district court.
We will certainly be keeping our members updated with any new developments in the case.
In this case, Miami-Dade County first enacted its residency restriction in 2005. D.E. 123-1. At that time, residency restrictions were “relatively new and somewhat unique”, Miller, 405 F.3d at 720, and Miami-Dade County was “part of essentially the first wave of these laws going into effect.”
Fact is, The State first imposed its residency restriction in 2004 and Miami Beach just weeks after the Miller decision. The City of Miami and Miami Dade County both slammed Miami Beach for its residency restriction and called it unconstitutional. Soon after the ACLU brought on a worthless preemption challenge known as Exile V Miami Dade.
The bottom line is this, was the State’s legislatures intent in 2004 to impose a punishment? If the finding is yes than the Counties ordinance is unconstitutional and violative of general law.
Simple
As a general rule of law, Counties can not impose punishment for criminal offenses, that power is reserved to the State legislators, nor can they enhance or increase the punishment imposed by State legislation.
In the State of Florida, the legislative history of residency restrictions is first found as a special condition of probation, which in our Nations deep history and tradition, is considered punishment. So in this State, sex offender residency restrictions, as a matter of general law, is a punishment not merely a remedial act.
In 2004 or one year prior to the Miller decision, the State enacted a residency restriction. Unlike all other sex offender regulatory statutes retroactively applied, the State has chosen to apply this PUNISHMENT only to those whose conviction occurred on or after its enactment date.
Furthermore the punishment imposed for a violation of this statute points directly back to the original offense, unlike other remedial statutes where the penalty opposed is for violating the ordinance it’s self.
It’s clear by any reasonable interpretation that Florida Statutes 721.22(?) is intended to punish
Itself, not it’s self
We must first ascertain whether the legislature meant the statute to establish ‘civil’ proceedings. If the intention of the legislature was to impose punishment, that ends the inquiry. If, however, the intention was to enact a regulatory scheme that is civil and nonpunitive, we must further examine whether the statutory scheme is so punitive either in purpose or effect as to negate [the State’s] intention’ to deem it ‘civil.’
The key here is the [STATE’S] intention. It’s clear by any reasonable interpretation that Florida Statutes 721.22(?) is intended to punish and State Constitutional law prohibits the Counties from increasing the penalty imposed by the State.
The State Statute is 775.215.
” is a motion asking the Court to rule that the other party doesn’t have a case. ”
How dare they ! The nerve I swear.
Our justice system is like a game of tennis. Bureaucrats bat the cases back and forth hoping they will eventually get lost in the ‘swamp’ never to be seen again. Our system of justice…if you want to call it that…makes it a wonder that anything is found either legal or illegal. How can supposedly educated judges look at the same case, apply the same laws, and come up with different conclusions? It’s almost as if justice hinges on what the judge had to eat at the last meal. In the United States how can something be unconstitutional in one state or region and yet not be unconstitutional in all states and regions? Why do we have to play these ‘shell games’ all over the country? Is it time to vote all lawyers out of government as it seems they have set themselves up for lifetime employment? How can there ever be justice and reentry to society when paranoia and false information set the standards for decision parameters? I still have too many questions.
The 11th circuit court of appeals sending it back to the Federal district court gives us a little bit of hope here. Hope it steers our away once and for all.
We don’t have a case ?? Lol. Yea right, It’s more like they don’t have anything to show for it.
Is this Miami-Dade County trying to cover its tracks before any investigation into the facts can be made public? Excuse me, but I am not the most ‘legal savvy’ person around especially when it looks like legal rankling is being used to avoid responsibility.
No