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.
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!