FDLE Ordered Not to Share Doe’s Identities in Ex Post Facto Plus Case.
In another small victory in the “Ex Post Facto Plus” challenge, the Court clarified it’s order granting the plaintiff’s anonymity to prohibit the Florida Department of Law Enforcement from sharing the identities of the “Does” with anyone other than those who have a need to know.
After the Doe’s victory in their Motion to proceed anonymously, the Court ordered the parties to confer and agree on a suitable protective order. The parties conferred but could not agree. Attorneys for the Does wanted the identities kept secret from anyone other than those who have a need to know. The FDLE wanted the identities to be known to anyone at FDLE – all 1,900 FDLE employees! Thankfully, the Magistrate Judge ruled in favor of the Does.
There’s still a long road ahead in this war, but it’s good to win another battle and it’s good to see that there are some fair judges out there.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It is bad enough they fight this, but to fight for 1,900 people to know….for no good reason. What a waste of yet even more tax payer money. It is staggering the amount of money our government is willing to misspend. Thanks for the update and good to hear this news.
The only thing that was about was money. The state with the ability to tax and raise more money versus limited resources.
When i see the judge about this injustice, it isn’t going to be as a John Doe!!
I am new to this group and so thankful for the people who help run FAC and NARSOL. My husband will be released in just under eight months. There is some dementia, but the Florida justice system does not see dementia, even when you have medical documentation. With that said, I will be helping my husband a lot as we try to navigate through all of the probation and registry rules.
In donating money to the Ex Post Facto lawsuit, which method lets FAC pay the lowest fee, thereby leaving more money for the lawsuit: check, charge card, etc.?
I praise God for this group of people and their leader, Gail Colletta. Up until now I have been completely on my own in trying to deal with all of these overwhelming rules. The probation office in my county refuses to meet with me to answer my many questions.
Thanks Sarah. a Check has the lowest fees.
I can totally empathize with your situation as my husband is also ‘forgetful’ and disabled. It is a rats nest of minutia, but it can be handled. The most important part is for you to speak to his Probation Officer and find out directly how she/he will treat the situation. Each officer has a different take, some good and some bad (or very bad).
What county are you in we do have coordinators in each area that will assist you with most questions. Just reach out to FAC. The Board and the other members are a great source of information and more importantly COMFORT! Also, there are some therapists who might state that your husband will not ‘need’ therapy because of his reduced mental capacity. And most of all ‘Keep Hope Alive’.
Take care
Small victory, yet still nice since this is coming from the U.S. Southern District court of Florida as well. I wonder if the recent Alaska case outcome can also be used in this case as an example since this case challenges deprivations of doe’s substantive and procedural due process rights. Add the Snyder case, Colorado case, all of the federal wins we have accumulated.
Alaska is state court and another state, so it’s not binding precedent, but it is certainly persuasive.
There you go. That’s what I meant “persuasive”. Thanks FAC
Just further proof the registry is nothing more than a mechanism for shaming.
Why would FDLE even need to know their identities?
Because FDLE is the defendant. In order to defend against the lawsuit they have to know who they are defending against, but only a very small handful of people need to know, not 1900 law enforcement officers in Florida.
How many registrants are actually part of this case? Or is this for all registrants? Just wondering about who exactly this applies to? Gilbert A. Schaffnit is the attorney I’m currently working with on my possible removal from the registry.
I believe it is 5 but when we win it will apply to everyone whose offense was pretty 1997, if I am right.
Not correct.
There are 5 representative plaintiffs, but if we win it benefits all. and not just those pre 1997
Even better. If Gundy wins will that help us?
Gundy lost
I saw that right after I sent the earlier post. So how will that affect our challenge?
it has no impact on our challenge