A lawsuit was filed in Federal Court challenging the Florida Sex Offender registry. The suit is a facial challenge, filed on behalf of persons required to register in the State of Florida.
It argues that the registry violates the Ex Post Facto clause of the constitution, constitutes Cruel and Unusual Punishment, violates Procedural Due Process, violates Substantive Due Process, is unconstitutionally Vague, has no rational relationship to its purpose and asks the Court to permanently restrain and enjoin the FDLE from enforcing the registration statute.
This is the suit we have been waiting for!
FAC offers a special thanks to attorneys, Val Jonas and Todd Scher for bringing this case, to Beth Weitzner, Jeanne Baker and all the other attorneys who assisted in researching and drafting the complaint, and to all of our members who contributed to help make this possible.
A copy of the complaint can be found here: Does v Swearingen – Complaint
We will keep you apprised of the progress.
the US Supreme Court rule expost facto in applied to criminal cases not civil case However the writers of the constitution didnot express that throry or belief I belive when a perons liberty is strip without a hearing or during a court sentence that was injoyed prior to having liberty removed is a violation of the expost facto law >>WHY when someone is sentence to incarceration their liberty is strip from them to be confined in and limited prevaledges are allowed, when a statute strips a person from thier liberty taking them out of thier residence taking their jobs and causing them to live homeless and below profety with out an oppertunity to get a job is punishment,, thus EX POST FACTO DOSE APPLY.
What has come of this case? Plus is there an attorney in Saint Petersburg fl, that would help with my case? Charged in 89, forced to plea in 90, on a hearsay, no evidence charge. Placed on registry in 2006. Suffering ever since.
Sounds almost identical to the Texas case that just got thrown out from a motion to dismiss posted recently on 11/21/2018. Any update for the community to be aware of?
Latest NARSOL article points out a little noticed but potentially significant precedent set by Packingham— that a restriction of SO rights must serve a “significant” governmental interest, not just a “valid” one.
Not to nitpick the lawyers who have done such an outstanding job here, but would it be feasible to file an amendment? NARSOL refers to the new standard as “a game changer”— IF used in petitions.
Regardless of anything, these lawsuits always go through several rounds of Amendments. I know that our lawyers are on top of things.
I encourage everyone to read up on what’s happened in other states and the success which has been achieved by those who’ve gone before us. Though every State has its own laws, this is a good place to start to get a very general sense of the nuts and bolts of what hopefully will happen in Florida. I’ve had a youtube page keeping track of successful cases going for some time now called “Solution Focused.” This case in particular will give a lot of information:
and this:
Different States, but similar process.
Since the courts have ruled that one can be a citizen of the ‘United States’ AND of the ‘State wherein he resides’, and since Congress has given ‘United States’ several legal definitions (including a ‘Federal corporation’), I’m wondering if one can renounce citizenship from the Federal zone (as SCOTUS previously referred to it) while maintaining citizenship in his/her domiciled state and, in effect, void the effects of the Federal SORNA?
One registrant previously sued to renounce his U.S. citizenship based on the ‘United States’ being at war (i.e., endless and currently ongoing war on terror, as originally announced by George W. Bush) and, after originally challenging it, the DOJ ultimately dropped its challenge:
http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2010/08/doj-abandons-challenge-of-sex-offenders-desire-to-renounce-citizenship.html
In this particular case, the man assumed that ‘United States’ meant ‘the 50 states comprising the union’; however, I wonder what would have happened had he challenged it based on one of the other ‘legal’ definitions of ‘United States’. There are even sections of the U.S. Code that simply refers to the “United States” and then in other places specifies “the 50 states”). It is important that everyone be aware that a word or term is given a “legal definition” by Congress (and the attorneys who assist them) when it loses its everyday, ordinary dictionary meaning that usually comes to mind.
For example, in the Uniform Commercial Code and its state equivalents, the ‘United States’ is legally defined to be “located in the District of Columbia”. Um, excuse me…are you telling me that ALL 50 of the states are somehow located inside that tiny 10 square miles? Are are you now telling me that ALL 50 of the states actually comprise the District of Columbia and, therefore, we are all considered to be living in D.C. and citizens thereof? Congress controls D.C. outside of the Constitution, and that might explain the Federal overreach when it comes to registrant issues…if we are all somehow viewed as or somehow contracted to be “U.S. (D.C.) citizens’. Just food for thought.
I think Congress at some point passed a law saying, in effect, people need to stop flooding the courts with such claims, they will not be considered.
Don’t go there. I believe you are referring to the so-called ‘sovereign citizens’ movement. I was not even close to referring to that. I was simply referencing what is printed in black-and-white in the United States Code and an actual case brought by a registrant (who apparently won), and pondering if perhaps the subject could be approached from a different angle…nothing more.
I misread.
The Cato Institute has drafted one of the best amicus briefs to SCOTUS that I have read so far (for the North Carolina case):
https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/wp-content/uploads/bethea_cert-stage.pdf
Thanks Johhny. The Cato Insit. gave the SCOTUS a wake up call to go back to the old Ex Facto Clause
As one of the John Does in this suit, I am thrilled that it has been filed, and am very grateful to Val and all of the others who have worked on it. I have learned a lot by reading the comments here. I have felt so alone but now see there is an active community of concerned SOs out there. So thanks to everybody. I’ll be watching this space for more news and comments.
Hi JJ,
I wish you, your fellow plaintiffs and Val the very greatest of success!!!
I feel comfortable speaking for all Registrants in wishing you all the success in the world on this very important lawsuit!!
– David*
*Convicted in FL and still on the FL registry.
I like the compare and camparison part It was so easy to understand and very concise. but i notice some of the offenders had soft sex crimes. nothing like sexual battery or child molestation being mention if it did. I did not see it all. I was wonder with it being filed, appeals from both sides and then final judgement what kind of time frame we looking at? 2 to 5 years?and if my crime was in 1991 way before Fsona act of 2007 would I get relief as well?I have Fla. conviction but live in different state I know you might have answer these questions but I have not seen the answer maybe it my eyesight or I just not seeing it. Please used layman terms I want to thank the Attorneys their helpers and the volunteers who made it possible Lots of HUGS and KISSES to you at FAC,and staff who helped
Joseph – we addressed timeframes in our Weekly Update last week. That can be found online. Rather than address the numerous posts and emails asking the same, we addressed it once for all.
FSORNA was 1997, not 2007 and YES, it will benefit everyone who has an offense prior to the enactment of a new “requirement” under the statute.
The lawsuit ONLY addresses the constitutionality of the Florida Statute, we do not challenge any other state’s statutes. A victory will not impact the statutes of other states except as persuasive precedence.
If you live in another state and are on the Florida registry, to the extent you have to comply with Florida registration requirements, it will benefit you.
Thank you for answering my questions
Joseph, with regard to “soft crimes”, it is common for attorneys to choose plaintiffs/clients who will stand as the best (and most sympathetic) representatives of the arguments they are making. To choose an client(s) with a heinous crime would only muddy the waters and place the lawsuit in a bad light, weakening its chances of success.
Still thinking on this fabulous case we got…. you know i’m not a lawyer, but i would feel more than comfortable representing myself… not to brag that’s just where i’m at, and we’ve been at this awhile. I just want to put out there that in the many (not that many, unfortunately) cases i’ve heard over the years I’ve noticed some similarities that happen from case to case. For example, on more than one occasion, during the the oral arguments, when the attorney mentions either “shaming,” “banishment” or “Scarlet Letter,” a flicker of agreement happens. It’s in our judicial DNA that we just don’t do that to people in the name of the Law. And somehow I think we might find we are right on time politically with this Lawsuit. They are now very familiar with what happens to a person when we make the mistake of holding someone forever responsible for a mistake made decades before…. how wrong, hurtful and damaging that can be. Do you mean to tell me that the Republicans that did this to us might be the Republicans who make it right?? God Bless America!!
Bill Clinton was POTUS from 1993 to 2001. The public shaming laws were brought on during his watch. He signed the public registry into law. Last time I checked, Predator in Chief Clinton is/was a democrat. Bottom line is party matters not; once our political hacks get the public to pee their collective britches on any given subject, you can bet your last dollar that the Constitution is going to take a backseat to re-election rhetoric (tough on crime) and special interest money (Ron Book; private prisons, etc.)
I pray you’re right and an unconstitutional wrong is righted. I don’t care who does it. They all swear the same oath to the Constitution. They’ve all failed to uphold the same.
Just for the sake of clarity, that law was sponsored by a Republican, and Mr. Clinton’s sexual relationships were with adults. Perhaps the women who tried to claim years after the fact that his actions were inappropriate were the true predators, whose actions were just an attempt to gain money and/or fame. Only the participants know what really happened, but he was never charged with any “predatory” actions. The bottom line is that shaming and social stigmatizing are just as wrong now as they were in 1850 when Nathaniel Hawthorne published The Scarlet Letter. Yet it is the public in general that has pushed politicians from both parties to enact these harsh and ever worsening laws. Now that evidence is growing to show that these laws do nothing to improve public safety, our best hope is for the Supreme Court to address it honestly.
Agreed. Not debating Clinton’s guilt or innocence. My point was to show that all political hacks (regardless of party), and the pant-pissers that allow their Constitutional Rights to be eroded in name of public safety will be undoubtedly be the ruination of our Republic.
So true, Duke. PLENTY of blame to go around to ALL the pandering politicians!
Totally agree!
I was mainly referring to the Bush years when he signed the Adam Walsh Act and SORNA was begun. Everything took on a whole new level. But you’re right, Megan and Wetterling were during Clinton and was where it all began.
Why is there no media coverage of this??
(At least, I was able to find any after several searches.)
We don’t have any volunteers to help with PR.
(Upon further consideration, maybe it’s a good thing that this is flying under media’s radar.)
thank you !
Excellent! Well researched and well drafted!
One thing. There is no mention of Section 943.325 of the Florida Statutes and its DNA submission requirement. Is that because it is not retro-active?
Seems to me this is the only argument against “Yeah, but most crimes aren’t reported and that is the only reason there are not subsequent sex crime convictions for these individuals.”
If that were true, DNA cold hits would be far more common, and these are the types of crimes that instigated the ever expanding laws. Proof that these individuals’ DNA were run through CODIS without a hit could go a long way. Maybe?
FAC, can you tell us anything about this court or the judges or anything you might know that might give us a hint of things to come?
The Southern District of Florida is the largest of the 3 federal districts. The Judge was an Obama appointee and former federal public defender. The feedback is that she is very fair.
In case you hadn’t figured out how important defeating these laws is, here is another example of how the SO registry can mess with you. I have worked for the family business on and off since my arrest in early 1999, but the business was sold earlier this year, so I am searching for a job for the first time in almost 20 years. Hah!!!! Yes, I got the long list of “companies that hire felons” but that hasn’t helped much. I finally got serious conditional offers from three companies, an airline, a big retailer and a financial service company. The airline said no thanks without anything else even after asking me for the required 10 year TSA criminal background check. The retailer just sent me a notice of possible bad stuff found. The financial company sent me the results of my background check so far. In the case of the airline and the financial company, they only looked back 10 years for criminal offenses. Not sure about the retailer. So I have seen the reports for the retailer and the financial company. The financial company says no criminal convictions found in the period they looked, 10 years. But of course, they say look, we found THIS. The retailer did not ask me about my criminal conviction even though it appears in their search FROM THE NATIONAL SO REGISTRY, not the State of Florida. They are asking me about being in the “national sex offender registry” not about the underlying convictions. So bottom line is that being on the registry hurts you even of the employer is not looking for older criminal convictions. That explains how me, the most overqualified person that many of these companies have seen, never hears back from many of these companies after good initial interviews. What I think they are doing is conduction “improper background checks” by Googling you first. But then again, these same employers improperly discriminate against older candidates who will mess up their health insurance loss experience which we know is illegal but nobody cares.
Well,I gave the report from the retailer a more close examination. Apparently, they only looked back 7 years for convictions not 10 years like the other two, but that doesn’t appear to matter if you wear the scarlet letter. Hopefully, they will be receptive when I point that out to them.
Highlights one of the big problems about being on the registry. They don’t even have to pay for a background check. Just a quick Google search of your name shows your registered sex offender status. While on parole, I asked all of the experts who were supposed to be helping me find employment for a list of businesses that hire sex offenders. They couldn’t do it. The felon friendly businesses lists are useless for the people permanently branded as sex offenders.
How about possible friends or relationships.
I have been denied employment by a few retailers as well. I figured since I’m always shopping in these places, then let me apply here for employment. Once they see my background through a check, then it’s pretty much done with. The interesting thing is that they have seen me shopping in there many times for years and without any incident to them whatsoever. You can’t work for us and earn your money, but you can shop with us and give us your money. lol.
@John I feel for you man I have an Associates Degree in Automotive Technologies and I graduated with “High Distinction” My field is Electrical/Hybrid “green cars” I had offers from big dealerships here in the valley. back ground check 10 years here in Az. State registry and google killed that for me. I can not even get a job at Auto Zone or Pep Boys. The sad part no kids go into parts stores of repair bays. Mom and pop car shops baring making it in that field because everything is done with diagnostics and those upgrades cost money.Now my degree is worth the same price of toilet paper,it is worthless.
@ JoeM: I think people do care about discrimination, but it’s very difficult to prove such cases in the courts. 😕
It is about time that direct attack was made of this laws as being non compliant with not only the bill of right and the 14th amendment but also supreme court precedent. The 1954 Brown decision said it is unconstitutional to stigmatize a person or class of people without just cause. There is no rational basis for this laws.
Well done! That was a thorough, strong, well written Complaint. The attorneys and staff behind it deserve great praise. They managed to capture the realities of the continuous punishment of those (and their families) with crimes decades old by changing laws over and over. Thank you for fighting this fight and thank you to the John Does who stepped up to the plate!
My argument is it shouldn’t take one person, willing to participate, sentence with probation, follow judge’s orders to the T, like to move on finding difficult because ,the registration. so I would like to know why the on going to procedure , making the sheriff’s office here in Florida that their Superior to citizens
Okay we made mistakes time to move on with our lives . many years has passed , predators are the hunters not the Lookers .
Well done, but I am still wondering why nobody ever seems to mention the post 1997/pre 2004 situation. Certain restrictions placed on registrants were PUNISHMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW because they were statutorily mandated conditions of probation. Take the residency restrictions. We know what the argument should be for persons convicted prior to them being moved out of the sentencing section and made a lifetime restriction. But HOW was the state of Florida able to “rehabilitate” those restrictions when they had already essentially admitted that they were punishment? If they were punishment from 1997 until 2004 even though they only applied during the term of sanctions, how are they now NOT punishment when they last for life? What you are asking for here has already been adjudicated 8 or 9 years ago in Georgia which was forced to modify ALL of its SO laws. Why are we just getting to this now and why are we using watered down arguments?
Further question. The current residency restrictions are punishment. We know that, but we have to get a court of competent jurisdiction to recognize that. But if they did, wouldn’t that be cruel and unusual punishment in that you would essentially be put on probation for life for ANY covered offense? Didn’t a court recently rule on that perhaps in Texas?
what are u trying to say good sir? i definitely don’t know what ur trying to say. Residency restrictions only apply to people convicted after 2004, just as the juvenile act only applied to kids convicted after 07 and the original predator act which only applied to predators deemed by a court convicted after 93. That should answer your question. When they wrote megans law, they illegally made it ex post facto, because if it wasn’t ex post facto they would have made all the other ones retroactive too.
Somebody needs to tell Miami-Dade that as they seem to think that the sate lets them apply their residency restrictions to any who wasn’t living in their current home before 2005 regardless of when they were convicted. The STATE seems to believe that they can impose some of these resections on you based on when you finished sanction or when you were convicted, not the date of your offense. But perhaps you can tell me how a “life sentence” of living ion the fringes of society is not cruel and unusual punishment for someone caught with say a few deleted pictures on their computer?
The Miami-Dade SORR and the State SORR are two completely different laws.
The Miami-Dade SORR is a county ordinance that IS, as written, retroactive.
The State SORR is a State Statute that IS NOT, as written, retroactive.
Different laws, different jurisdictions, different requirements.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the Miami-Dade SORR exists only because the Florida Legislature gave permission to the counties and municipalities to ENHANCE the SORR provided for in the 2004-2005 law. it still does not alter the fact that they are applying it to persons for whom the original restrictions were punishment as a matter of law and the cities cannot do what the state cannot do. Could the cities put you in jail for 5 years beyond the maximum state sentencing guidelines? No. Hell even if the state could do it, it would arguably be improper for the cities and counties to enhance criminal penalties. Perhaps this is why you guys are having so much trouble with this SOOR. You can’t seem to pick up oil the obvious stuff.
Yes – clearly we should have retained you, Joe, instead of our team of attorneys. Next time, I guess.
Nope. I lost my law license in 2000 when I plead out. Oh, wait. Did you think I was some “jailhouse lawyer?” Apparently so because I have attempted to volunteer to help in any way and have heard nothing but crickets.
Joe – please reach out to [email protected]
@ Joe@FAC lol : )
You’re absolutely wrong. My husband was convicted in 91, finished pribation in 03 and he has to comply with residency restrictions. He did not have restrictions when we left Florida in 2004, but when we came back in 2008, the residency restrictions were in full force.
Probation conditions are not intended as part of punishment, are they? Punative as they seem. I thought “punishment” was intended to end with prison.
no – probation IS a part of punishment
Conditions of probation, general or special, are punishment and have been seen as punishment by the courts for ages. As such, they cannot be altered barring a violation, revocation of probation and what would be a “re-conviction” and establishment of NEW conditions of probation for lack of a better way of describing it. The State of Florida figured out after a few years that they needed to remove some of these sex offender conditions from the setting requirements so that they could say that they were no longer punishment. Neat trick, eh?
It’s supposed to be part of the punishment, yes, but it’s also supposed to be the side of punishment that doesn’t get in the way of any rehabilitation efforts.
Anything sentenced to you by a court judge is a punishment. Even serving community hours doing pick up and cleaning or even just paying back restitution – of course, some punishments are more harsh than others. But probation of all types, including felony probation is a punishment. Judges have even made commentaries under penal law statutes saying so – that probation is a punishment.
sex offender hysteria is a white caucasian thing
Steve, what is your point? And how does it relate to this lawsuit?
nothing, just something I’ve noticed. u can form ur own opinions. I’m looking deeper into this.
@ Steve You had mention that the “Sex offender hysteria is a white Caucasian thing”. First of all, You are forgot to mention what kind of data and how you came by that conclusion.You are entitled to your opinion as well, just as we are. But you haven’t mention Facts I live in a State has about the same races of the Hispanic and Blacks on the registry as the “white Caucasian” person. Are You implying that the White people created the Sex offender Registry to make them superior to other races? Then you failed to dig deeper a lot of republicans and Democrats who are of mixed races voted for this bill on Sex offenders. And to also point out Congress gave the Attorney General too much power.See Gundy and U.S case now.. What you written was race baiting bullcrap. I am white and I had slept with black and hispanic woman. I am very interested in an open dialog with you as your evidence and conclusion statement you relied on. Please feel free to reply I am an open minded person and I am willing to put your facts or opinion to the test
I’m talking about people who take the lead and spearhead vigilante campaigns about sex offenders in their neighborhoods by posting signs or flyers etc.
Now THAT was NOT part of the filing! And with good reason.
It’s possible that you are onto something, Steve. And there may be studies out there on the disparate impacts on minorities.
But consider also the case of our state’s most infamous recent vigilante, Jorge Porto-Sierra. Caucasian or not, THAT dude has serious unaddressed issues.
well my reasoning is that whites are more protective of their kids for some reason, and their could be many reasons. But i’ve never seen any other race of vigilante, male or female. Do whites want to make it look like their white kids are more important than other races? IDK
Only allowing your comment to post so others can point out how ignorant and racist it is.
Huh? Where did that come from? I’d delete your comment if not for the immense curiosity to know what you’re talking about.
It’s true of course; whites are more prone to hysterics on any given issue at any given time. I believe this truth was born out in the same article that proved to the SCOTUS that sex offender recidivism occurs at a “frightening and high” rate. And tomorrow…wait for it… tangerines will grow thumbs; conquer mankind and eventually execute anyone who every enjoyed citrus products of any kind.
Sincerely,
Another Hysterical White Man
That would be particularly bad if it happened in Florida.
Not funny, Duke. Now I’m going to have nightmares! 😩
I’m so glad this is filed! I thank all involved so very much. From my perspective, Floriduh is the most punitive state for registered citizens. Year after year, more restrictions are piled on. It’s good the so-called “Online Sunshine” website
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/
tracks all changes to statutes so you can peel back the onion to see what your punishment was originally compared to what it is now. For example, “sex offenders” were only required to re-register once a year before September 1, 2005. After that, twice a year, retroactive to the beginning of time.
What a great tool! But how do we find it within the link? So many chapters and parts!
Almost all states have some version of ex post facto laws. I was convicted in 1992 Iowa, of a no contact offense on my stepmother. Iowa had no registry until 3 years later, but said I would be on their registry till 2010 even though I left the state the day I was released from prison. By moving to California and then Washington each place added me to their lists without deleting me when I moved to next state. Washington won’t drop me because Iowa has increased registry times because of the Federal SORNA. 26 years without so much as a traffic ticket, for an offense with my stepmother while I provide chaff to clutter the list of people who are child offenders.
Many people on this board are onetime former child sex offenders. In fact, you can always find people whose past offense was more severe than our own. That does not mean that they need to be subject to a lifetime of sanctions. This filing makes that clear.
The complaint asks for relief “as applied to Plaintiffs”. So, should the court rule in favor of Plaintiffs, are we looking at situation where the judge says, “OK, but my ruling only applies to the 5 people who brought the complaint and no more”?
Thomas – in the prayer for relief it asks for the statute to be struck on its face and as applied. Relief is not limited to the named plaintiffs.
Is there a local brevard lawyer that handles registration issues. Because I’m in a hard spot I moved been here 2 years Got a house job is down the street 4kids in private school and they get a new officer and he says they forgot about a tiny park by me now I have to move now. How do I do that I can’t just move out my life is here. What can I do my charge is from 1991 it was L and L charge I got four years probation now I’m sucked into also does those laws apply to me from 91 I need help because I only been locked up once in 91 when I was 18 now I’m 46 and my family is suffering help please!!!
Tired – try Gil Schaffnit (https://floridaactioncommittee.org/attorneys/criminal-attorneys/)
Thanks I emailed him
FAC, thank you for clearing that up, because I was also unsure if it would only apply to these defendants. I want to add a you tube link, about their state constitution, and how people moving from other states, may not have to be registered there anymore. The court clearly said they cannot be made to register, if prior to the registry laws, but some have still not been removed, however over 1200 have been, as of 2013. Not sure if it still applies, but assuming it does, as I doubt they have changed their state constitution in 5 yrs.
Remove this link if you see fit. Thank you
https://youtu.be/x9jojkABU-A
The video is of the attorney who won the case in Md.
Keep in mind something in MD may not be applicable here and vice versa
If a federal court rules on Constitutional grounds, the ruling applies to all situations. That’s what happened in Michigan in Does v Snyder, with 5 plaintiffs asking for relief. That suit also asked for relief on ex post facto grounds.
No. In the prayer for relief it asks for the statute to be struck on its face.
Thank goodness because as of now I have to separate from my family from home of a year because they forgot about a park nearby so I have to leave my wife And kids to go who knows
I think it’s a good angle they are trying for. So this whole thing is geared towards the 5 people that had committed an offense prior to the 1997 additional regulations they were convicted under? If they were to win their case then this wouldn’t be for someone post-1997? I guess if you can get them to admit an ex-post facto situation then people of various years of convictions can plead their case also. My offense is from April of 1998 so I guess there still would be a lot of added laws/rules that came after then that I could say was added retroactively to me.
The key is – anything in place at the time of your offense would be fair game to apply to you. Stuff added on after the fact would not.
Would the same apply to local ordinances? Or must action be brought on those individually? Examples: Halloween laws; sheriffs posting signs; in Dade, living within 2,500’ of anything; in Brevard, coming within proximity to anything; ad nauseum.
The lawsuit challenges the state statute. Each municipal ordinance would have to be challenged separately.
That said; if something is deemed unconstitutional for the state, it will generally be deemed unconstitutional for the county or city to do. The result is a domino effect, where one falls and the laws below it start falling in succession when challenged informally or through a lawsuit.
Some County and City attorneys and legislators with integrity recommend their municipalities roll back their ordinances in light of the decision. Some dig in their heels and refuse to repeal unless a court forces them to.
TO: FAC
“The key is – anything in place at the time of your offense would be fair game to apply to you. Stuff added on after the fact would not.”
so at the time of sentence if the law was 5 years on the hit list and then changed to 10 years while on probation then 20 – 25 years sometime after if this is won the would have to honor that 5-year price club membership ticket I was sentenced to?
thanks
How would we find out what was in place at the time of an offense?
The filing contains a nice appendix listing what passed in each year. But many offenders may be looking at the year of their offense within that appendix and wondering, well, I think my crime was on x date, were these passed into law by that date, or are they ex post facto to me?
If offense date < statute change = ex post facto violation
if offense date > statute change = you’re hit.
That is the reason for my question.
Anything different if it were federal?
No, because the statute being challenged applies to both state and federal offenders in Florida.
Is it the time of the offense? (when you were charged) or time of the conviction?
Offense
Any idea of what kind of time period we are looking at before this is ruled on? Thanks so much FAC and the attorneys responsible for this attempt to restore adherence to the Constitution!
This case will take years.
Our SORR challenge was filed in 2014 and it’s been in litigation since. It’s going to trial later this month and we likely won’t get a decision for a year after that – then appeals.
they forgot to mention that in 1997 the statutes allowed you to seek relief by simply having your civil rights restored, where now you need a full pardon, which would be almost impossible
Having your civil rights restored is impossible also.
wishful thinking, but….
Hit the Lotto and make a 1 million dollar donation to the Governers “cause” and watch the pardon get signed….
Remember; money talks
Is this case for everybody or just the people who filed if it is everybody else are still in the same position even if you win.i filled with Estes hightower last wed. With the middle district of fla. Is this the same case ? This only apply to the people who are in the complaint not a class action suit is the one f.a.c. filled class action .I am a monthly paying member this is a good cause I will continue even if I win my case
It is for everybody.
This case is not affiliated with Estes-Hightower. It is not the same case – to our knowledge they have not filed a case yet.
Our complaint is challenging the statute facially and as applied. It is not limited to the named plaintiffs.
The encouraging thing is that all of the plaintiffs were convicted of very minor offenses, yet have been forced to suffer demonstrably additional punishment. My hope is that some day the Supreme Court will revisit the notion that the Constitutional ban against ex post facto laws only applies to punitive laws. The Constitution actually bans ex post facto laws PERIOD. Most state constitutions are worded similarly.
I love it ! Especially all the violations against registered citizens that it is covering ! Goodness pleaseeee give us this one!
Thank GOD – finally someone is stepping up to the plate on our behalf !! Thank you, thank you, thank you……
Good Luck Florida Sex Offenders on your Ex Post Facto Lawsuit
Oh man, if we win this one then wow ! It’ll probably be challenged on appeal of course, but hey, I like the SCOTUS panel we have today.
We have a few wins under our belt – the Internet Identifier order last month was a win. Our reversal in the 11th Circuit on our SORR case was another win. I’m proud of the strides made so far in such a draconian State.
Indeed FAC, we should all be proud and grateful ! and keep fighting the good fight !
Great news for Florida for sure! God knows they need it.
Yes !!! Finally ! Can’t wait for this.
This is Great ! Is this in similar fashion to the one in Colorado ? That one was an as applied challenge, this is a facial challenge. I know they are different, but I’m no legal language master here.
Same here, but I think the violation of Substantive Due Process as the posts says, covers the as applied challenge also similar to Colorado. Once again – I think.
Well done! Thanks for getting this filed.
I was getting ready to cancel my regular monthly donation because everything seemed hopeless, but I am once again full of hope. So I will continue to support FAC with my regular monthly donation in the hope of a brighter future for us all. Thank you everyone involved in this.
Milton – I’m sad to hear that. Not because of the money because of your loss in confidence in what we are doing. We have several active cases going. Things don’t always move as quickly as we would like, but we’ve accomplished a lot in our tenure. The more resources we have, the more we can accomplish.
Pray for justice people! It’s on now!
All it takes is a just judge at last.
The case was assigned to Judge Kathleen M. Williams who will preside over the case with Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres.
Judge Williams was appointed to the court by Barak Obama.
My birthday is tomorrow 10-10. THANK YOU FAC for getting this done. I know that alot of frustration was involved with this with other nefarious things going on (clear my case), But it is now filed.
Thank you for this birthday present.
Go Val, Todd, Beth, Jeanne, and the rest of the Crew over there!!!
👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
Thank You,we waiting for this….