Ex Post Facto Lawsuit Filed
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.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.