Florida Action Committee (FAC)

News Nation states, “Sex offenders in one Florida county are being told they cannot enter shelters during Hurricane Milton and must stay at the local jail instead.” No surprise to most of us, this was in Flagler County where Rick Staly is the sheriff.  Staly said that these people, who are forced to be classified as sexual predators, have probably

This week two of our FAC board members participated in a reentry seminar at Madison Correctional Institution, an incentivized facility.  The Florida Department of Corrections plans on eventually conducting such seminars at all facilities.  Why it has taken so long to figure out the need for such programs, I do not know.  But leaving a correctional institution with a one-way

Florida Action Committee is working toward filing a lawsuit to begin taking down the insane Florida county ordinances that are spreading from county to county like a cancer.  All it takes is for one county/municipal commissioner to hear of a sex offense ordinance in a nearby county and they decide to propose it in their own locality.  Never has any

FAC Contributor #12 on October 3, 2024 at 5:32 pm Final arguments were heard challenging the Florida requirement that the message sexual predator must be printed on a driver’s license. The plaintiff, an FAC member from Jacksonville, argued that this requirement is unconstitutionally compelled speech. The plaintiff is represented by attorneys from the Florida Justice Institute in Miami. FJI also challenged

According to Elizabeth Larson with the Lake County News, “a federal court ruling handed down earlier this month has resulted in changes to inmate and arrest information posted on the Lake County Sheriff’s Office website.” The Ninth Circuit Court ruled that Maricopa County, Arizona’s posting of photographs of arrestees was unconstitutional since it is punishment, and the state may not

The decision was a mixed one that found some aspects of the most recent version of Michigan’s Sex Offender Registration Act unconstitutional, but upheld it in other respects.   The court found for the Plaintiffs on the following issues: (1) Under relevant Sixth Circuit case law, retroactive imposition of an in-person reporting requirement violated the Ex Post Facto clause. (2)