FAC Weekly Update 2026-06-02-What You Need to Know About the New July 1 Laws
Weekly update for June 2, 2026. This is recording number 373
The July 1st Changes Are Coming – What You Need to Know About the New Laws
Dear Members and Advocates,
Next month, one of the more significant expansions of Florida’s sex offender laws in recent years will take effect. On July 1, 2026, CS/CS/CS/SB 212 (formerly HB 45) becomes law, creating new residency restrictions, expanding exclusion zones, increasing law enforcement powers, and imposing additional restrictions on supervised individuals.
This week, we’re taking a deep dive into exactly what changes, who is affected, what the practical consequences may be, and what you should be doing now to prepare. We will also be discussing what FAC is doing in response.
New Places You May Not Be Allowed to Live
If your qualifying offense involved a victim under 16 and you are subject to Florida’s residency restrictions, you already know you cannot live within 1,000 feet of a school, park, playground, or daycare. Starting July 1, the list expands to include “public swimming pools”.
A “public swimming pool” can include: City and county pools, community pools in subdivisions and HOAs, apartment complex pools, condominium pools, Trailer park pools, or pools in churches, community centers, or public facilities. “Public Swimming Pools” are not just pools. The definition includes all water recreation facilities such as splash pads.
In practical terms, this means there will be fewer places available to live, particularly in densely populated areas where apartment complexes and subdivisions often have pools.
People who are currently living within the new exclusion zones will not be forced to move, but if you decide to move, you will become subject to the restriction. A big uncertainty remains – what about pre 2004 registrants? Previously, the statute did not apply to people who committed their offenses prior to 2004. Now, the statute says that if you change your residence, you become subject to it.
Enhanced “Proximity Ordinance”
The law also creates new restrictions on knowingly approaching or communicating with anyone under 18 within 500 feet of certain locations that include schools, parks, playgrounds, daycare centers, public swimming pools or places where children were congregating. This does not mean you automatically commit a crime by walking past one of these locations. However, it creates new opportunities for misunderstandings and allegations if law enforcement believes prohibited contact occurred. This is not limited to communicating for a sexual purpose, this includes any communication. As always, avoid situations that could be misinterpreted.
Police Can Arrest First and Ask Questions Later
One of the biggest changes in the law may receive the least publicity. Beginning July 1, law enforcement officers can make a warrantless arrest if they have probable cause to believe someone violated these restrictions. In plain English, that means that prior to July 1, officers would investigate and seek a warrant. Now officers may be able to arrest immediately based on their subjective determination that a violation occurred. Whether that ultimately results in a conviction is a separate question, but the arrest itself can have serious consequences, including never being able to petition for removal from the registry.
Additional Probation Restrictions
For individuals sentenced after July 1 for qualifying offenses, courts may impose additional supervision restrictions related to these newly covered locations. If you are currently on probation, community control, or conditional release, you should discuss any questions with your supervising officer or attorney before assuming existing rules remain unchanged.
What Should You Do Before July 1?
Chances are, if you were in a home that complied with the statute, you won’t be asked to move but make sure you have the telephone number to an attorney who specializes in these matters handy (a list of referrals can be found on our resources page). Regardless, you should still determine whether any “Public Swimming Pools” are located within 1,000 feet of your residence, especially if you live in an apartment complex, trailer park or community that has a pool. If you’re safe and comfortable where you are, now is the time to renew your lease for as long as you can.
You also need to be super vigilant whenever you are within 500 feet of a school, pool, park, etc. One of the biggest problems with this law is that there are no lines on the ground showing you what’s 499 feet away and what’s 501 feet away. Young adults also don’t wear tags that identify them as 17 or 19. Since communicating can include something as benign as ordering a meal at a restaurant, if your server is not clearly over 18, you might be best off changing tables. A best practice is avoiding any communication with someone who appears to be under 18 wherever you go and identifying a few places you frequent to ensure they are far outside the buffer zone. You may need to stop at a different gas station a bit further out, but peace of mind is worth it.
Document everything and make sure your paperwork is handy. Maps of places you frequent, copies of the statute, lease documents, utility bills with your name on it and other records may become important if questions arise. You want to make sure these are all readily available and someone you know has a copy. If you’re arrested and in jail, finding these documents will be a lot more difficult than if you have them ready to go.
Ask questions NOW before problems arise! The worst time to discover a misunderstanding is after an arrest. If you are uncertain whether a location qualifies under the statute, seek clarification from an attorney familiar with Florida registry laws. If you are on probation, ask your officer. If you are off probation, you can contact the FDLE or your local police department and try to get your answer in writing. If they refuse to put it in writing, section 120.565 of Florida’s Administrative Procedures Act (APA) authorizes any “substantially affected person” to request an agency’s opinion on how a statute, rule, or order applies in particular circumstances. Reference the APA in your request and be sure to save a copy of your request and their response. We have put a fill-in-the-blank template request on our website, which you can use.
What is FAC doing now?
Short answer: Suing. FAC has retained the law firm of Winston & Strawn LLP to bring a constitutional legal challenge. This challenge will be led by Michael Kimberly, one of the nation’s premier appellate advocates. He has extensive experience litigating constitutional challenges to state laws and regulations, he has built a reputation for handling complex cases involving fundamental constitutional rights. Mr. Kimberly is a Yale Law School graduate and longtime professor of Supreme Court advocacy at Yale.
Every victory FAC has achieved has been made possible by members and supporters who stepped up when it mattered most, and NOW is when it matters most. As a non-profit supported solely on member donations, one of the most uncomfortable things we have to do is ask for donations, especially from a population that doesn’t have much to give. But if you want to help create meaningful change, you need to pitch in. No donation is too small, and every dollar helps fund the fight. Until the case is resolved, 100% of all donations made to our General Legal Fund will go towards this case and you can donate here: https://floridaactioncommittee.org/donations/ (be sure to select ‘General Legal Fund’).
The challenge ahead is significant, but so is our determination. Together we can make it happen!
Sincerely,
The Florida Action Committee
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I am confused about this. Previously, the statute did not apply to people who committed their offenses prior to 2004. Is there a month. Example October 2004 or is it the whole year.
As far as my novice reading of the Statute and this new addition, if before 2004 the residency part does not effect us. The communication/proximity does however. So always error on the side of caution, unless they have grey hair don’t talk to them.
How the new law impacts pre-2004 offenders is still unclear. We believe that if someone is not subject to the existing SORR because they are pre-2004 this provision does not apply to them in any form, but it’s vague and we will find out (hopefully) through the lawsuit.
Awesome and Thank you FAC. that was my reading of it also but I am not versed in the legalee’s
As written this provision applies to all pfr regardless of the date of offense. Until the Courts rule otherwise that is the way we must assume that LEO will interpret it.
James where do you see that that please put in the statute segment. Thank you.
When you read the Statute, the communication, as well as loitering and prowling part concerns all registrants. Having it as part of the same statute written the way it has been will lead to officers “erring on the side of caution”. Thus we must also err on the side of caution in our reading and interpreting the statute.
Since we know that FDLE is required to clarify the statutes and interpret them for individuals on the registry according to how they effect the individuals specific circumstances I am formulating a request for clarification of mine.
I plan on laminating their response and carrying it with me so that if by chance an officer does contact me I can show them the FDLE clarification on the statute as it pertains to me.
Hopefully having that will offer me some protection. However until such time it is wisest for me to assume that every restriction applies to or could be construed to apply to me.
By assuming the harshest restrictions apply I can prevent myself from being in situations that could land me in jail.
Also since interpretation is made on an individuals perception we know that most LEO as well as the community hates us. That perception could in fact cause them to misinterpret the statute.
Oh yes I thought you were referring to the residency part
Direct from the Statute.
First place Dates are mentioned, and this is in regard to the Residency clause.
(2) 60
(c) This subsection applies to any person convicted of a 61
violation of s. 794.011, s. 800.04, s. 827.071, s. 847.0135(5), 62
or s. 847.0145 for offenses that occurred occur on or after 63
October 1, 2004, and before July 1, 2026, excluding persons who 64
have been removed from the requirement to register as a sexual 65
offender or sexual predator pursuant to s. 943.04354.
Second place
(3) 67
(c) This subsection applies to any person convicted of an 68
offense in another jurisdiction that is similar to a violation 69
of s. 794.011, s. 800.04, s. 827.071, s. 847.0135(5), or s. 70
847.0145 if such offense occurred on or after May 26, 2010, and 71
before July 1, 2026, excluding persons who have been removed 72
from the requirement to register as a sexual offender or sexual 73
predator pursuant to s. 943.04354.
Third place
(c) This subsection applies to: 104
1. Any person convicted of a violation described in 105
paragraph (a) for offenses that occur on or after July 1, 2026, 106
excluding persons who have been removed from the requirement to 107
register as a sexual offender or sexual predator pursuant to s. 108
943.04354. 109
2. Any person who is subject to the residency restrictions 110
in subsection (2) or subsection (3) who changes his or her 111
permanent residence on or after July 1, 2026.
No where in there do I read anything about pre 2004 offence dates concerning residency.
Now if you are referring to the L&P provision / Proximity and contact then I would agree in part that for now it applies to all. I believe this is the part of the statute that is Vague and attackable.
Hello tearfuleagle. My offense happened June, 2004 when I was living in another state. After fighting my case. I was finally sentenced on January 2005. You seem to know this very well. Would the new law effect me. I am very curious. I was thinking of calling FDLE. This is so confusing. Can you help me out? Thanks.
Hello, First off I am a complete novice and my only knowledge on this topic is from FAC. But when I look at this new law and the statute, it does say offences committed after October 2004. I do not see any date in this section referencing “conviction”. FAC thoughts on this?
Agree. Normally it’s date of offense, not date of conviction, that would make a law ex post facto.
You said it yourself in citing the law: it’s “for offenses that occurred on or after October 1, 2004” (italics mine).
So if the victim was 16, this law does not apply?
Here’s the language:
(4)(a) A person who has been convicted of a violation of s.794.011, s. 800.04, s. 827.071, s. 847.0135(5), or s. 847.0145,76 regardless of whether adjudication has been withheld, in which the victim was less than 16 years of age at the time of the offense, or who has been convicted of a similar offense in another jurisdiction, regardless of whether adjudication has been withheld, in which the victim was less than 16 years of age at the time of the offense, may not reside within 1,000 feet of any school, child care facility, park, playground, or public swimming pool.
Cynthia, this is indeed confusing because I was convicted of a federal CP offense but there is no determination of age in my Judgment and Sentence or in the sentencing transcripts.
The punitive nature of the statutory scheme is particularly evident as applied to individuals whose convictions did not establish the factual predicates now used to justify heightened restrictions. In such cases, the State imposes additional burdens based on facts never found by a judge or jury, effectively creating new punishment without adjudication. This lack of a prior factual determination further underscores that the statute operates not as a regulatory measure, but as an after-the-fact punitive enhancement, raising serious due process concerns.
Just saying
It seems every session, someone proposes a bill to somehow punish us even further with more and more restrictions. However, they (Judges) have ruled that almost none of our burdens are punishment, but everyday ordinances to abide by.
If nothing is punishment related to registry, they can give “Carte blanche” (is a term that refers to unrestricted power or authority given to someone, allowing them to make decisions or take actions without limitations). Are chances of getting off the registry move farther and farther away as new laws, bills and restrictions become more and more embolden, essentially pushing the limits of the law, without consequences. Basically, a blank check unless a judge intervenes, or F.A.C and other organizations file expensive lawsuits.
I demand florida write a law requiring everyone to tattoo their birthday on their forehead so I know who not to talk to.
No end
I see what you did there LOL
( I have to admit, it took me three tries to figure out what you meant, but on the third try, I got the Ah-ha moment)
How about the beach I mean they have already stripped us from so much and I myself go to the beach to catch fish to help provide food for me and my mom I know our forefathers would not ever have any of this where we would not be able to take care of ourselves and get food as far as fish hunting and so forth
I don’t recall seeing the beach or fishing mentioned in the new law.
So, according to this, I would be at risk of even taking my dog to a dog park even though I am no longer on supervision and all sanctions from my federal CP conviction have ended with the exception of being forced to register as a SO in Florida? The feds never even proved age!
There is nothing illegal about that. Just don’t communicate with minors
What about theme parks also? Would this not limit those as well
The statute does not reference theme parks.
I would argue that it does. The definition of swimming pool would include the water parks located inside of the theme parks and there are specific areas of theme parks dedicated to young kids including rides tailored for them. Therefor until it is clarified and unambiguous I would err on the side of caution.
Ryan
Don’t give them any ideas. They are getting so hard on us that I could actually see them trying to keep us from attending church because there are children there. But that would actually defy the constitution.
In reality, every session (Or any opportunity) they find a way to give us more punishment, that somehow is NOT punishment, at least according to the courts. So, wave a magic wand and nothing is punishment, if you are on the registry.
Dear Cherokee, you are definitely on-point about LE trying to prevent us from going to church. A federal probation officer tried to do that very thing to me. I had to take her to court. Shockingly, the judge favored her testimony but ultimately ruled her actions were unconditional. What did the US Attorney’s Office do? They defended the probation officer! They don’t care about the Constitution. Beware!
SP
Since they change the rules so often, I have given up. I live my life as if I am not on the registry. I mean I am not going to go visit a day care or anything, but the laws are so vague or contradictory that I just do my best and live my life one day at a time.
Very few on the registry re-offend, yet the law makers make it seem we are all sneaking out at night and looking into people’s windows or something. Most of the arrests are not for another sex offense but more so for a paperwork violation like for not registering an un-used/but still active email account.
I heard Disney world already bans us and I heard Universal does ID readers.
So as bad as it sounds might be safe to stay out of them.
Just went to Universal Studios with no problem. They used it got quick re-entry but yes I would not spend my money on disney