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.
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 legal@floridaactioncommittee.org
@ 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.