FDLE Sidesteps Critical Questions on “Internet Identifiers” and “Mobile Homes”, Leaving Registrants in the Dark
In December, the Florida Action Committee submitted a Request for Declaratory Statement to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement seeking clarity on the state’s “Internet Identifier” reporting requirements. The request was prompted by a troubling pattern: members being arrested for allegedly failing to report accounts that either do not fall under the statute or, in some cases, accounts they were not even aware existed. FAC submitted a second Request for “Mobile Homes”.
Under Florida Statutes Section 120.565, any substantially affected person has the right to ask an agency how a law applies in specific circumstances. The purpose of that statute is simple – clarity. When the government imposes criminal penalties, the people subject to those laws are entitled to understand what is required of them. FDLE has now responded. And instead of providing that clarity, they effectively declined to answer the question.
The response avoids addressing the core issue: what exactly qualifies as a reportable “Internet Identifier” under Florida law, particularly in light of the federal court ruling in the Internet Identifier case before Robert Hinkle? That was the very ambiguity that led to the arrests in the first place, and it remains unresolved.
This is more than frustrating; it’s a fundamental problem. If the agency tasked with enforcing a law cannot, or will not, clearly explain what that law requires, then how are individuals supposed to comply? And just as importantly, how are law enforcement officers across different counties supposed to enforce it consistently?
We are already seeing a patchwork of interpretations from county to county. What is considered a reportable identifier in one jurisdiction may not be treated the same way in another. That kind of subjectivity is exactly what the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution is meant to guard against. Laws that carry criminal penalties must be clear enough for an ordinary person to understand what conduct is prohibited. When they are not, they are vulnerable to being struck down as unconstitutionally vague. FDLE’s refusal to provide a direct answer only underscores the problem. It leaves registrants guessing, law enforcement improvising, and prosecutors deciding after the fact what the law supposedly meant all along. That is not how the rule of law is supposed to work.
If clarity cannot be obtained from the agency charged with enforcing the statute, then the issue will inevitably have to be resolved in the Courts. Because a law that cannot be clearly explained is a law that cannot be fairly enforced.
Here are FAC’s Requests:
Req for FDLE Declaratory Opinion RE Internet Identifiers_Redacted
Req for FDLE Declaratory Opinion RE Manufactured Home_Redacted
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
basically, this sounds that if they can’t get you on reoffending, they will get you on this, which is still technically reoffending
Is this law retroactive?
This is not a new law. This is the existing law.
I’m talking about if you had an account prior to the law coming out. Certainly 48 hours would have passed before you knew to register it. Most likely they will tell you they you have 48 hours once you find out but that still technically is ‘breaking the law’ isn’t it?
48 hours “once you find out” is not the law. 48 hours “after using” is.
https://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0775/Sections/0775.21.html
Is someone instructing you to find and register old internet identifiers you don’t use?
Making such laws Unconstitutionally vauge!
David
It reminds me of the lyrics from Hotel California, on the registry. We can check out any time, but we can never leave (The registry)
There are states and non profits FAC being one of them. This is the truth AI is big now for everyone is seeking it. But to see california teaching prisoners about it shows states like rehabilitation and yes money is made in that. People who teach need to get paid and AI is not cheap to run business wise great article in a way to show. Colorado just had a AI seminar for its prisoners too.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/21/business/ai-chatbots-prisoners.html
There are not even prision sponsored Veteran support programs in prison. That is crazy
First sentence corrected “There are states and non profits FAC being one of them that help!!”. So 2015 I did not know about FAC think was still newish. Depressed waiting on court than 3 year probation trapped in house thinking I was only one but FAC is right good or uncomfortable issues need to be discussed to know the truth thank you FAC
I find it interesting that even the FDLE says that NOT ONE single person has requested “internet Identifiers”. With the Florida population at 23 million, and approximately 48,000 police officers and Sheriff deputies, not one single request has been made. Why is the FDLE spending all this time, money, and effort, if no one wants it?