FAC Weekly Update 2025-12-15-Registry Crosses the Line from Regulation to Restraint
Weekly update for December 16, 2025. This is recording number 344.
Dear Members and Advocates,
The Clements case currently pending in the Middle District of Florida asks the question, “whether [] residency restrictions, considered in combination with the registration and reporting requirements” render Petitioner “in custody” for purposes of filing a habeas corpus petition. On July 9, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit concluded that the dismissal of Clements’ case (by the lower court) was premature because the Court did not consider the restrictions on sex offenders’ residency when determining that Petitioner was not “in custody”. The case was remanded back to the District Court and in August the Court ordered the parties to conduct research until November 14, 2025 and within 30 days thereafter “Respondent shall brief the Court on whether Florida’s sex offender rules—the residency restrictions combined with the registration and reporting requirements—render a petitioner “in custody” for habeas purposes, even when the petitioner is no longer in physical custody.” Yesterday, the Secretary of the Department of Corrections – the Respondent in the Clements case (2:24-cv-00294 MD/FL) filed his Brief and within 21 days, attorneys for Clements will file theirs.
The Clements case is extremely significant because it takes a step towards recognizing what courts have long avoided admitting: that modern residency restrictions can be so severe and so liberty-limiting that they constitute “custody” for purposes of federal habeas jurisdiction. This case has the potential to be a game-changer.
For decades, courts relied on Smith v. Doe’s description of 2003-era registration as a “nonpunitive,” passive, informational system to conclude that registrants were not restricted or supervised in any way. But Clements argues that today’s residency rules resemble probation-like restraints, often forcing individuals into homelessness by restricting where and how they can live. If the courts conclude that the residency restrictions impose sufficient liberty restraints to qualify as custodial for habeas purposes, the case could open the door to a new avenue of constitutional review – one that would allow registrants to challenge the legality, proportionality, and retroactive application of these burdens.
Let’s take a step back and revisit the foundations of sex-offender registration law and examine how far modern registration and residency-restriction schemes have drifted from what the U.S. Supreme Court actually upheld in Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003). In Smith, the Court repeatedly emphasized that the registry (in 2003) was passive, informational, and minimally intrusive. Registrants in Smith did not face in-person reporting for minor life changes, presence exclusions, broad employment bans, driver’s license markers, or as relevant here; residency restrictions. The Court stressed that Alaska’s law imposed “no physical restraint” and involved only the “simple” act of providing accurate information “promptly” when it changed. Smith, 538 U.S. at 100–101. The Court explicitly relied on the fact that registrants were “free to move where they wish and to live and work as other citizens,” id. at 101, and that the law did not resemble “probation,” “parole,” or any “affirmative disability or restraint.” Id. at 100–02. These statements are the backbone of the Smith decision—but they no longer describe the modern registry.
today’s conditions bear no resemblance to that 2003 baseline. Florida now requires multiple in-person reporting requirements (at least 2 or 4 times a year), immediate (within 48 hours) reporting of virtually any change in information, registration for temporary travel of 3 or more days, and compliance with highly technical rules that can produce felony charges for trivial or unavoidable mistakes. And, of significance here, residency restrictions. If Clements prevails in proving that residency restrictions render him tantamount to being “in custody”, it undermines the core premise of Smith—that registrants are “free to move where they wish”—and signals a judicial recognition that modern registration has crossed the line from regulation into restraint.
Now that the Respondent has filed his brief, Clements’ attorneys will file theirs. We would like to acknowledge and express our sincere appreciation to those of you who have submitted declarations in support of Clements’ argument. The physical constraints imposed by state-level residency restrictions are not merely inconvenient—they are severe, pervasive, and fundamentally incompatible with any meaningful notion of being “free to move where we wish.” We are confident that Clements will demonstrate that reality clearly and conclusively. If HB 45/SB 212 is enacted, it will only further expose the extent of these restraints by expanding the State’s reach into where people may live. And when those state-level restrictions are layered with increasingly restrictive county and municipal ordinances, the cumulative effect becomes undeniable: the freedom the Supreme Court once assumed exists no longer does. At that point, the argument is not simply reinforced—it is unavoidable, and it may well mark the end of the legal fiction that modern residency restrictions are anything other than punitive.
Sincerely,
The Florida Action Committee
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
You guessed it right, Hernando County. I too have plans on moving out of this state some time next year.
When I was released from the county jail where I spent 6 months I went back to my home. I had to go to the probation and parole office to live them my address. One of the probation officers went out to check out where I lived and when he came back told me that I couldn’t live there because it’s practically across the street from high school. I told them that in my sentencing report the judge said that I don’t have any prohibitions where I live and that I can be around those under 18. I had to live at a friends house for 2 weeks while my lawyer filed a clarification of sentencing. I had to appear in court a few days after when the judge told Probation and Patrol and the prosecutor that I can live at my home, I have no prohibitions as far as being around minors. The only prohibitions that I did have was that I couldn’t use the internet until my probation was over. After a couple of years my lawyer filed a motion to be taken off probation. The prosecutor told the judge (it was a different judge) that I got a sweetheart deal and that being released from probation would be a slap in the face. The judge did take me off of sex offender probation and placed me on administrative probation. No more probation office visits or them coming to my house, and I was allowed to use the internet.
May I ask is this in hernando county, for in the office they laugh about people who do not meet the residency feet while on probation. March of next year selling my house and I am exiting florida for this state is not worth the risk of violating for me at all even with made up charges. Once I am done with florida and their terms.
@Crazy88
I’m rooting for you Crazy88. I don’t have the finances to leave and live elsewhere. I wonder if I could somehow manage to get myself deported to northern africa and make my way to europe claiming refugee status lol. In germany they do not consider the lifetime registry valid/lawful. Better than rotting in FSP the rest of my life for a new breed of FTRs no one has ever heard of or forced into homelessness.
WOW! Great synopsis of a very complex and long running series of injustices and ever expanding cycle of unconditional sanctions imposed on a class of citizens and their families that have already served their time and completed probation! Sounds like we have excellent legal counsel and are having our day in court!
No Body
This nation was founded on “Liberty”. Think about the meaning of that word!
Also, equality under the law! – Not a separate justice system with separate rules for certain people!
The right to possess real estate! – The right to reside on own’s own piece of land is sacrosanct!
The right to be left alone ! – Our forefathers cast off government oppression!
Our government doesn’t exist to dole out rights and liberties – it exists to protect them !!
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Our government is, in DEED and in FACT, ABRIDGING:
—-Freedom of movement (residency exclusion zones, travel restrictions)
—-Freedom of association (parks, schools, libraries, even churches)
—-Privacy (public registries, online disclosure)
—-Employment liberty (broad job exclusions)
—-Due process (automatic lifetime registration, minimal individualized review)
—-Proportional punishment (civil sanctions continuing long after sentence completion)
These restrictions apply after WE have completed our sentence, often for life!
Our nation’s founders deliberately cast off attainder! This registry scheme is anti-American!
But according to the FLA AG in this doc, these, etc, are merely collateral consequences of the system and, therefore, are ok to have in place. The state should be careful about the collateral consequences they think are ok because they will come back to bite them in the arse.
TS
And why do other felons (Murderers etc) not face any “Additional” restrictions mostly when they complete their sentences? Do Ex-murderers have to turn off their lights and not display Halloween decorations during holidays? I am pretty sure the answer is no.
Do they have to register after their sentences over for life? Why do they get a pass? I am not wishing registries on anyone, but why JUST us and for life? It is pure sinister and hate towards us. And not helping at all that they lie and say we have a massive re-offense rate which has been disproven by the statistics.
But they do jump for joy each year when the registry departments get more and more funding, plus new and more restrictive requirements are added.
@CherokeeJack
I’ve been saying the same thing for years.
I’m reminded of footage of a man (big dude like 6′ 275lbs), completely in cold blood and unprovoked in anyway; picks up a 5yo and slams him into the ground head first. I think this took place in an airport or some sort of transit station. It was all caught on cctv. The police calmly took him under custody, and I have no doubt in my mind once he “did his time” that maniac was released without any kind of registry-esque restrictions.
There needs to be a correction made to this article that I and many others believe that the statement “that modern residency restrictions are anything other than punitive.” should read: That modern SOR IS anything other than extremly punitive.
Father, please bring victory in the courts for the dismantling of the registry as it stands today. Please bring about commonsense laws and remove the “Life sentence” that the registry creates. In Jesus Name 🙏 🙏
Amen!
Amen, hear this prayer, oh Lord
Nancy,
We are all praying, and I know He hears our prayers and knows our hearts. Just waiting for the Heavens to open up and give us that victory. In the meantime, we fight until the bitter end.
I imagine if F.A.C and others like them did not exist, all of us would be violated and in jail already, even though we have completed our sentences. Thank God for the warriors for justice that do care about us.