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.
FAC would you be able to post the Identifiers ruling by Judge Hinkle?
https://floridaactioncommittee.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/II-Case-Order.pdf
Thank you much
Made up or not, when the sheriff department who I see every 3 months says it and FDLE says the same thing, when I called them, I’m intending to believe it….i have FAC on my list also and a few others ( just in case) they throw a curve ball at me….
I think the answer is whatever they decide to use against you to lick you up.
Police officers are often either ignorant of the actual law, malicious actors, or a mix of both.
Actually, they’re bad actors acting in bad faith pushing a fruitless “proactive” narrative. And here’s the cherry on top, they have misguided savior complexes.
I was told any app on your smartphone, that u can have a 1 on 1 conversation without a moderator , has to be listed on the FDLE SITE, if you chat on a open forum,where everyone can respond to you, and is moderated you don’t….like the ring doorbell app, it’s a open forum and moderated……
They completely made that up. There is nothing in either the statute or the court order that remotely relates to the concept of whether communication is moderated.
I believe we should go back to the Federal Court that issued the original order and seek a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief preventing arrests that do not comply with the order.
If any of you are denial, let me indulge you. The registry czars want us ALL, either back on paper (Probation) or back in prison. Either way, both the registry and prison get funding. And while other crimes like murder, once a person has done their time, other than having a lifetime felony, they pretty much can move on with their lives, unless they commit another crime (Or on the occasion where a cop just wants to harass them).
I am lucky to have a deputy who is super cool, however, he just checks on me, it is the FDLE who has dedicated employees spending all day trying to find ways to get us back in the system. Having said that, law enforcement is just that, enforcement. The law makers are who are imposing these laws on us, well after our sentencing and retroactively, seemingly ever session with more restrictions on our daily lives.
Finally, when we try and get relief through the courts, we rarely win for one reason or another. Is it that the judges are afraid they would be looked upon badly by their peers or do they actually just hate us?
Ridiculous…Interesting about the Google Drive though. If you have a Gmail email address, then you also have Google Account associated with it, which includes (Gmail + Google Drive + Google Photos) for EACH account/Gmail. It’s automatic. However, to my knowledge, there is no way to send private messages from Google Drive or Google Photos… just forward or share stuff via your Gmail email account. So as long as you have all your Gmail email accounts registered you’d think that would cover you. I did list my Drive and Photos as well, along with YouTube, Ebay, etc etc, and my registered list is now 5 pages long…but better safe than sorry…..
I understand that some individuals have been wrongfully arrested, but Google Drive is in no way a “commercial social networking” website or app as defined in the statute. It’s a file storing and file sharing system. It does not allow individuals to create profile pages and for this reason alone “need not be registered” in the words of Judge Hinkle (see pages 4-5 of the court order).
I have nevertheless registered my Google Drive account anyway, just in case, along with dozens of other “non-internet identifiers” that don’t come close to meeting the statutory definition of the term. Two or three registration cycles ago, the MDPD deputy said I had the longest list of internet identifiers she had ever seen. I told her it’s because no one knows what an “internet identifier” is.
Always better safe than sorry. However there is also a trap that is baited and pre-set contained here. If we have a google drive that is linked to our e-mail and we have not registered it then we are in violation of the law. If we attempt to amend this issue and register it now we are past the 48hour window and in violation. In other words we are damned if we do and damned if we don’t