FAC Legislative Committee chips away at SB 212
Yesterday, several FAC members traveled to Tallahassee to speak before the Senate Rules Committee in opposition of SB 212. This is on top of hundreds of members and other advocates from across the country who have called and emailed Florida lawmakers to put a stop to two horrible bills, HB 45/SB 212, that are under consideration this year. The good news is our efforts are paying off!
Here’s where things stand: Yesterday, the Senate Bill sponsor amended his bill to make it a bit less radical. The prior version of SB 212 would have created an entirely new criminal statute making it illegal for certain people on the registry to simply be present at places like schools, parks, playgrounds, childcare centers, and public swimming pools. It set up a brand-new statute to criminalize presence alone, even without any wrongdoing. It also expanded residency restrictions and added very specific rules about what counts as a “public swimming pool,” reaching into many community spaces. In short, it built an entirely new layer of criminal liability on top of already existing restrictions.
The newer amendment takes a different approach. Instead of creating a brand-new criminal statute, it folds some of these restrictions into Florida’s existing loitering and prowling law. Rather than broadly criminalizing mere presence in certain places, the amended version focuses on prohibiting contact, communication, or intentionally approaching minors in parks, playgrounds, and pools. It also increases certain distance requirements and slightly broadens how public swimming pools are defined. While it still expands restrictions, it does so in a more integrated way within current statutes instead of creating a sweeping new standalone crime. In simpler terms, you can now go to places the older version said you couldn’t, you just can’t approach or communicate with minors (except your own family). It is still restrictive, but it is less expansive than what was originally proposed. You now don’t have to worry about eating in the wrong restaurant or going to a dentist too close to a day care, you just have to make sure you’re not approaching or talking to minors (which is good practice to avoid doing anywhere you are – for anyone).
The expanded residency restriction remains. The new amendment still restricts certain registrants from residing within 1,000 feet of restricted areas, but the “bathing areas” that covered beaches and lakes is gone.
I’ll spare the more technical issues for now, because even in it’s current form there’s a lot that still has to change and the legislature has a lot more hurdles to overcome. First, the companion bill in the House, HB 45, needs to mirror what the Senate is trying to do in order for this thing to become law. Aside from speaking before the Committees, our legislative team has been meeting individually with many Representatives and Senators and highlighting all the issues with these bills. Many are receptive and recognize that they will do more harm than good, creating a bunch of unintended consequences the State will not want to deal with if these bills pass.
The FAC Legislative Committee has done a tremendous job in chipping away at what would have been far worse legislation. Through advocacy, education, and engagement, the most extreme provisions were softened. But our work is far from done. We continue to fight to stop even this amended bill from passing. Any enhancement to the already draconian restrictions imposed on individuals whose offenses predate these laws raises serious constitutional concerns. Not to mention the dramatic increase to the already problematic homelessness numbers.
What we have been doing is working! We will remain vigilant, because protecting constitutional rights does not end when a bill is amended — it ends only when unconstitutional legislation is defeated.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
FAC made no deals and entered into no agreements. We oppose this bill, for a variety of reasons that have been laid out.
Just wanted to say Thank All of You for fighting for us! I am so grateful to you All! I noticed they struck out the part in the previous Loitering and Prowling law that said “This paragraph applies only to a person described in subsection (1) whose offense was committed on or after May 26, 2010.” So now it will apply to everyone? What are you supposed to do if someone under 18 approaches you to ask a question like could you please tell me where the bathroom is located or just simply says hello? Are you to be rude and ignore? I’m sorry if the question seems silly, but I haven’t had to worry much about it because of how long ago my offense was. None of this bill makes any sense and is such a violation of Ex Post Facto. They have no basis or facts that any of it will do anything to protect children. For the last several or more years The majority of everything I’ve seen in the news that involves new offenses aren’t even registered offenders re-offending so this idea that passing new laws against us will do anything to help is ludacris. Again thank you for All that you do, you are all in my prayers. To All my registered family, I know that God has our backs. Stay strong and Keep Fighting, Have Faith and Never Give Up!
Isaiah 41:10
“So do not fear, for I am with you; do not be dismayed, for I am your God. I will strengthen you and help you; I will uphold you with my righteous right hand.”
As I have stated before: Just get someone angry or someone who just wants you out of the picture and Wham, the point of the finger and you are guilty no matter how innocent you are.
Good morning all. Thank you for the post. My reading of the amendment and watching the bill “debate” (tongue and cheek there). I see the same conclusion. Even the bill sponsor, when Senator Pizzo, asked about hotels, said that he wanted to more narrowly tailor the bill. We know why! My one question and then a final comment before heading to the dentist. Can registrants now go to pools, say in the gym, as long as they do not engage in conversation with minors?
Lastly, the bill sponsor is skirting the ex post facto issues by codifying the changes inside an already enacted statute. For example, adding in the pool et al proximity restrictions by putting it inside the Loitering statue and the 1000 ft for pools et al in the already codified residency restrictions statute for those after 2004. My question, is should they be able too?
In closing thank you to all the FAC members who were there to fight for us and to FAC as a whole. As always just my humble opinion please correct me in any areas I missed the mark. Good day to all.
No – an amendment to an existing statute that violates Ex Post Facto is still an issue for them
My thinking as well. Just because you add to an existing statute rather than create a new law it’s gotta be Ex Post Facto. Also am I correct on the pool, park issue? We can still go just not speak or interact, correct?
This is incredible news. I underestimated our FAC legislative team. So impressive that they have been able to educate and change some minds. The fact that beaches have been taken out of the senate bill is by itself absolutely astonishing and great work. I thought the bill as written would steamroll. Great Great Job!!
Instead of a straightforward “no entry” rule (like a simple stop sign saying “Do not go here”), the modern version says: “Sure, you can go to that place… but you absolutely cannot talk to, approach, or even come close to any minors while you’re there.”
This subtle shift sets up a perfect trap for entrapment—or at least for accusations that are extremely impossible to defend against. A concerned parent (let’s call them “Mr. or Mrs. Karen”) spots a registered sex offender (RSO) on the premises, fabricates a quick story, coaches their child to repeat it, and suddenly you’re facing serious new charges. Don’t forget the child will never be forced into any serious questioning to determine truth. It doesn’t take much imagination: one vague claim of “he came too close” or “he looked at my kid,” and the system kicks in.
No court in the United States will take an RSO’s word over a child’s or parent’s in these situations. You’re presumed guilty the moment you step into the courtroom—even for a first-time violation of these conditions. And if you’re already a registered offender facing an entrapment-style accusation like this? The judge will throw everything at you: the full weight of the law, the gavel,the book, and the kitchen sink. The consequences will come down hard and fast. Don’t pass go and don’t collect 200 dolla… You can be sure the sponsor of this bill knows it to…. The mice never figure out why the cheese is free..
Understand your skepticism, but accusations can be made by anybody in any situation. If anyone hasn’t been the target of fanciful accusations, they’ve never been through a divorce. Our population always needs to cover their butts, so bring a couple of witnesses with you if you go to the beach.
So if a child is drowning, let them drown?
We’re not telling anyone what to do or not to do. According to the language of the bill, a violation is “knowingly contacting, communicating with, or approaching with the intent
to contact or communicate with, a person younger than 18 years of age in any park building or on real property comprising any park, playground, or public swimming pool.” That’s all we can say.
Or better yet, they just need to quash this bill all together. That’s how we got so many SO laws, by allowing laws that have been “chipped” away from their original design and making it a little better. They are right, people will use this against RSOs. And I’m kind of a loner, so I don’t have any witnesses to back me up.
Correct – our work only ends when the bill is entirely defeated.
With this its hard to stay in state with kids for sure even without kids. Like I said before once I am back in colorado would love help others get out of florida.
In my non-lawyer opinion, yes. The bill does not make any exceptions for emergencies. Although the affirmative defense of “necessity” could be raised at trial, approaching a drowning minor would be a first degree misdemeanor with up to a year in jail based on the wording of the bill. That is how badly this thing is written. Save a drowning child in a park = arrest with a possible one-year jail sentence. Casually walk by as the child dies a horrible death = no criminal consequences. When the parent screams at you in tears for not intervening, you just say that doing so would have been a crime. Yes, that’s the society we are now living in.
Maybe that’s what needs to happen.
Maybe some other horrible harm has to happen to a child, where a registered human could have intervened but Florida legal fiction statutes prohibits them from being near or approaching a child.
This is not far-fetched. This is one of those real life possibilities.
It’s already been happening that many people are afraid to assist those in car accidents or with other injuries because they can be sued or arrested for intervening because they are not medically trained.
We were visiting my sister and her husband in TN several years ago when a terrible vehicle collision happened on the road beside their home. We went running out to see what we could do to help.
My BIL immediately stopped me from helping the guy in the passenger seat who wanted to get out of the car. He told me I could get in trouble for helping him and pulled me back. I felt horrible.
Maybe that’s what it would take to get the public to shift gears and demand opportunistic politicians to fix it.
Maybe that would get the attention of people who don’t understand what is going on with this registry and all its unconstitutional adversarial restrictions.
As more humans get added to that piece of garbage registry, more families and friends are becoming aware and waking up to the truth.
I’m being entirely honest… If Karma deems this is what has to happen, so be it. She is wiser than anyone in Tallahassee.
No.
Necessity (when it can be absolutely proven) is always a defence under common law. The doctrine is called the “choice of evils” defense.
JJJJ,
Remember, a defense might avoid conviction, but it won’t avoid an arrest. And an arrest (even if it is dismissed or you are acquitted) will forever preclude you from removal under 943.0435(11).
I’d hate to see anyone drown unnecessarily, but RM is right.
I am not sure I could stand by and watch some kid die. IDK That’s rough.
Consider this my Warning to Registered Sex Offenders (RSOs): The Impossible Dilemma in a Child’s Life-or-Death Emergency
If a child is drowning and you’re an RSO who cannot legally approach or be in proximity to children, you’re caught in a brutal catch-22: damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
If you intervene to save the child — A bystander (often labeled a “Karen”) could accuse you of inappropriate contact or violation of your restrictions, leading to charges. As an RSO, conviction is highly likely in such cases—expect jail time. Even with deep pockets for top-tier lawyers, your odds of beating the charges might be as low as 30%. At best, you’ll drain your finances on legal fees, and even if you win, the judge may impose additional punitive restrictions to “satisfy” public outrage before you walk free.
If you choose not to help (to avoid violating your restrictions) — Some states have duty to rescue or duty to assist laws that could still put you in legal jeopardy for failing to act when you reasonably could. Even if criminal charges don’t stick, the court of public opinion will destroy you—along with potential civil lawsuits that could ruin you financially and socially.
This is the harsh reality RSOs face in emergencies involving children: no truly safe option exists. The legal system and public perception often leave you trapped between risking prison for helping or facing condemnation (and possible penalties) for standing by.
I have been through a divorce, and while my ex-wife made many serious accusations against me, none of them resulted in a life sentence or permanent imprisonment. Divorce situations as in most everything EXCEPT RSO scenario’s there is a benefit of the doubt presumption.
In contrast, the current situation involving registered sex offenders (RSOs)—where mere proximity to certain individuals in locations can serve as the key triggering factor—has the potential to lead to exactly that outcome: a lifetime prison sentence, and it can escalate very quickly.
I truly appreciate your hard work and diligent efforts in this fight. Please do not mistake my previous comment for a lack of gratitude—it is not. Without people actively fighting these issues, there would be no chance of meaningful change.
My only point, consistent with prior Florida Action Committee (FAC) posts, is that the “new normal” involves the average Joe and Jane initiating entrapment scams and schemes. FAC has posted many of these, so you are aware I am speaking truth. This particular bill appears to be a surefire entrapment mechanism, and the sponsor knows it. That is why it was crafted in this specific way, deliberately. The sponsor is likely hoping no one notices the implications until the bill is signed into law, the trap is sprung, and it is too late to challenge it effectively. He didn’t do any favors here.
You can be certain that the moment this bill receives a signature, RSOs will face a wave of court accusations based on fabricated or exaggerated scenarios—cooked up by individuals acting as self-appointed “Karens” fulfilling their perceived “civic duty” to protect society from so-called monsters. You can also be sure 99.99% of the time the RSO will loose in court.
This risk needs to be spoken out loud now, so that when these predictable consequences unfold, there is at least one voice of reason highlighting the foreseeable entrapment and overreach.