Florida Action Committee (FAC)

State Registry Rules Aren’t Federal SORNA Rules

FAC-3 — Wed, 07 Oct 2026 13:05:17 +0000

A recent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit is a good reminder that there are actually two different registration systems that people need to understand: state requirements and federal SORNA requirements. A state has it’s own set of laws (including duration and how often you have to report) and the feds have different rules.

Now before you ask how this matters in Florida, well, it really doesn’t. Florida is one of the few states that are “SORNA compliant” and, in fact, the requirements in Florida far exceed the requirements under SORNA in most respects. Duration of registration is perhaps the most relevant. Under SORNA, only “Tier III” offenders register for life. In Florida everyone on the registry has a lifetime requirement. But for people in other states or for people who travel often, which federal tier you fall under becomes much more relevant. For example, if you live in a State that has a 10 year registration duration and you think you are done after 10 years, then travel from one state to another without registering, you may still get prosecuted federally.

In Summers, the defendant committed an offense in New York and then moved to New Jersey and failed to register. He was prosecuted federally. As part of his prosecution, he challenged the District Court’s determination regarding his placement in SORNA Tier III. The government tried to argue that his challenge was moot because his prosecution was over and he was out of jail. The District Court disagreed in one respect, and the 3rd Circuit agreed with the District Court, “The District Court’s determination regarding SORNA Tier III has ongoing consequences despite the fact that Defendant is out of jail. Based on the District Court’s determination, SORNA requires him to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life and to appear in person to verify his registration every three months. See 34 U.S.C. §§ 20915(a)(3), 20918(3). A decision in Defendant’s favor could result in direct relief from some or all of those consequences.”

The 3rd Circuit, nevertheless, found that he was a Tier III, but the important takeaways are (1) court’s decision about his federal Tier III classification – finding that this determination is not moot once the prosecution ends, and (2) for registrants, it’s important to understand the distinction between state law and federal law. It is also important to become very familiar with the obligations under both (even if your underlying offense was not a federal offense) and become very familiar with the requirements of each state you travel to (for example, many of our members were removed from their state of conviction, then moved to Florida and found they had to register again).

SORNA establishes federal registration requirements and its own classification system. The federal tiers can determine how long registration lasts and how frequently a person must report in person. But states don’t all implement registration requirements in exactly the same way. A person may be subject to one set of requirements under the law of the state where they live and a different set of requirements under federal SORNA. A state’s determination that someone is not required to register under that state’s law does not necessarily mean the person is outside the reach of federal SORNA. And the reverse is important too: complying with a state’s registration requirements doesn’t necessarily mean every federal SORNA obligation has been satisfied. Since SORNA contains a federal criminal enforcement mechanism and a person who is required to register under SORNA and knowingly fails to register or update a registration as required can potentially face federal prosecution — even when the underlying registration requirements and procedures vary from state to state.

The Summers case is a good example of how complicated this can become and a reminder for anyone who was thinking of leaving Florida to move to Michigan (after their recent victory).

United States v. Summers – 3rd Cir

The post State Registry Rules Aren’t Federal SORNA Rules appeared first on Florida Action Committee (FAC).

ID: Another Court Says the Registry Isn’t Punishment.

FAC-3 — Wed, 07 Oct 2026 11:44:59 +0000

A federal judge in Idaho has issued a decision in Does v. Labrador, a case challenging Idaho’s sex offender registry under the Ex Post Facto and Double Jeopardy Clauses of the Constitution. The decision is not the result the plaintiffs wanted. On September 29, Judge David Nye granted Idaho’s motion for summary judgment, holding that Idaho’s registry scheme is a civil regulatory system rather than criminal punishment.

The plaintiffs challenged four major components of Idaho’s system: lifetime registration, housing and employment restrictions, notification requirements, and the public registry. The court agreed that the challenges could be considered not only individually, but also by examining their cumulative effect.

The court candidly acknowledged that Idaho’s requirements are, collectively, “burdensome.” It simply concluded that burdensome is not the same thing as punishment under the constitutional test established by existing Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent. Under Smith v. Doe, courts generally begin with the legislature’s stated intention. If lawmakers call a registry “civil,” courts then ask whether its actual purpose or effect is so punitive that the civil label cannot stand. The Idaho court emphasized that the challenger faces an extraordinarily high burden — requiring the “clearest proof” that the supposedly civil system is actually punishment.

The Idaho plaintiffs argued that when lifetime registration, housing and employment restrictions, constant reporting obligations, travel notification, and public dissemination of personal information are considered together, the result looks an awful lot like punishment. The court disagreed. It found that none of those restrictions, individually or collectively, were sufficiently punitive under current precedent.

OPINION

The post ID: Another Court Says the Registry Isn’t Punishment. appeared first on Florida Action Committee (FAC).

“By the Way”: When the Label Becomes the Story

FAC_Media — Tue, 06 Oct 2026 21:29:26 +0000

Media & Commentary

“By the Way”: When the Label Becomes the Story

By FAC Media

We are not putting C.C. in the spotlight.
We use his initials because our concern is how the story was told, and what happens to a person when a label is added to it. He is already dealing with serious allegations. We do not need to add another layer of public attention to his name. His name is replaced with initials in the quoted text below. The video keeps the original audio so you can hear the words for yourself.

“By the way, [C.C.]’s also a registered sex offender.”

Tom Rizzo, a co-host and analyst on On Patrol: Live, made that statement during an August 22, 2026, segment about a Marion County police pursuit. It only took a few seconds to say. But I kept coming back to those words: by the way. Did the audience need that information at that moment? What did it explain about the alleged theft?

Please watch the video below and hear for yourself.
Listen to the way Rizzo says it, including his pause and emphasis. You can decide how it comes across. My question is why the label needed to be added when the story already described serious allegations.

The clip includes the introduction and the surrounding context, with Rizzo’s original voice and delivery.

Serious allegations already existed

According to published coverage of the incident, C.C. faced charges of grand theft, fleeing and eluding, and resisting arrest after an August 1 pursuit involving a reportedly stolen Nissan Altima. Those reports did not identify a new sexual offense or explain how his registration status related to the alleged theft.

The person whose car was reportedly taken deserves answers. The officers and everyone nearby deserve safety. C.C. also deserves to have the current allegations judged on the evidence. Those responsibilities can exist together. Compassion does not require us to overlook what someone is accused of doing.

Rizzo does not explicitly say the label makes C.C. more dangerous. But I worry about what a viewer may hear in that added detail: another reason to fear him, another reason to assume the worst. Something can be factually true and still need an explanation of why it belongs in the story.

One incident, different editorial choices

Coverage of the same arrest shows that including the label was a choice:

WKMG, August 5:
Its report about the stolen-car pursuit included registration status near the end, attributing it to deputies.
KFOX14, August 4:
Its headline began, “Florida sex offender steals car,” although the body described allegations.
Hoodline, August 5:
Its headline about the chase also led with registration status.
Ocala-News, August 6:
Its account of the incident described the alleged theft, pursuit, helicopter tracking, stop sticks, and K-9 apprehension without mentioning registration status.

The Ocala-News account gave readers enough information to understand what allegedly happened without adding registration status. This is one incident, but the comparison makes the editorial choice clear.

FAC has raised this concern before

Florida Action Committee has previously questioned the use of registration labels in coverage of unrelated allegations. In its August 27, 2025, weekly update, “Asking for Your Voice,” FAC discussed Pennsylvania news headlines about a Florida registrant accused of stealing a U-Haul or receiving stolen property.

FAC argued that the coverage supplied no connection between the registration designation and the alleged property crime. It urged readers to ask news outlets why the label was included and to challenge reporting that defines someone by a past offense rather than explaining the current allegations.

The Marion County example brings that same question back into view: Is the label explaining the event, or shaping how the audience judges the person?

What could this do to a defense?

Imagine trying to prepare a defense while a television clip is already telling strangers how to see you. A prospective juror might remember “the sex offender” more clearly than the actual allegations. A potential witness might see the coverage and begin making assumptions about your character before hearing your account. That is a concern worth taking seriously.

The attention can reach far beyond a courtroom. An employer or landlord may encounter the clip months later. Relatives may have to answer questions they never asked to face. A child, if the person has one, may hear an adult’s label repeated at school. Even when a case changes, the first headline can keep circulating. A family can be left carrying the weight of a story that has moved on for everyone else.

We do not know whether this broadcast affected C.C.’s defense or caused any of those harms. I am asking broadcasters to consider those possibilities before adding information that may follow someone for years.

Florida’s evidence law, section 90.404, generally restricts character evidence used to prove someone acted in conformity with that character. It also prohibits other-crimes evidence when relevant solely to show bad character or propensity, while providing permitted uses and exceptions. This courtroom rule does not prohibit television coverage. It does illustrate why a past offense is not automatically evidence of a new allegation.

FDLE makes a related distinction on its public registry: placement in the database is not intended to indicate the level of risk a particular person presents to others. Registration status alone does not establish an additional danger during a pursuit.

How an unrelated arrest can become a recidivism number

A theft arrest can count as general recidivism in research measuring rearrest for any crime, if the person meets that study’s population and follow-up criteria. It does not thereby become sexual recidivism. Studies measuring reconviction or return to prison use different outcomes. An arrest is not a conviction.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics’ nine-year study, published in 2019, demonstrates the distinction. It followed prisoners released in 2005 across 30 states through 2014. Among those whose most serious imprisonment offense was rape or sexual assault, approximately 67% were rearrested for any crime, while 7.7% were rearrested for rape or sexual assault.

Those figures describe different outcomes within a specific prison-release population. They are not estimates for every person currently on a registry. Calling the broader figure “sex-offender recidivism” without explaining what was counted can leave audiences believing it measures new sexual crimes.

A person’s classification and the nature of a later allegation are separate facts. Accurate reporting should keep them separate. We cannot establish from this segment whether C.C.’s arrest will enter any particular research dataset.

Visible on camera, but given a voice?

I also think about the people watching at home who share that label. They may be getting ready for work, helping a child with homework, or trying to hold their lives together. When do viewers get to hear those stories? When do people on the registry get room to speak about rebuilding a life, instead of being introduced through an arrest?

There are exceptions. PBS’s FIRSTHAND episode featuring Paul gave a person on the registry room to discuss relationships, faith, and stigma. That matters. Police shows are not the only place these stories appear, and we have not counted enough coverage to say how the airtime is divided. But this example shows that television can make room for a person to be heard.

An arrest clip gives us one encounter in one person’s life. It cannot tell us who every person on the registry is. The public needs room to hear about accountability, change, family, and the work of starting over, too.

The Society of Professional Journalists’ ethics code calls for context, avoiding stereotypes, and balancing public interest against potential harm. It also distinguishes legal access to information from an ethical justification to publish or broadcast it.

Before adding “by the way,” please consider the person who will have to live with those words. If registration status is relevant, explain the connection. If someone is accused of taking a car, report the evidence and the allegations carefully. Leave room for a fair defense, and remember the people around the accused who may feel the consequences of the coverage.

A label should never do the work that evidence is supposed to do.

https://floridaactioncommittee.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/On_Patrol_Live_Tom_Rizzo_2026-08-22_Excerpt.mp4

The post “By the Way”: When the Label Becomes the Story appeared first on Florida Action Committee (FAC).

Florida’s Registry: The Rules, Records and Money That Keep It Running

FAC_Media — Tue, 06 Oct 2026 13:00:43 +0000

FLORIDA · PUBLIC RECORDS · RESEARCH

Florida’s Registry: The Rules, Records and Money That Keep It Running

How reporting duties, shared information, enforcement, and funding connect across Florida

October 4, 2026 · Updated October 5, 2026 · Research based on public records

Florida’s registry runs through sheriffs’ offices, state agencies, computer systems, paid employees, and public money. These parts connect through reporting duties, shared records, verification, and public notices. Together, they form the infrastructure that keeps registration and enforcement operating.

This is a long read because no single budget, database, or law tells the whole story. We start with one county’s records and follow the information and money outward. Each section takes one piece at a time and explains the terms along the way. It is still only part of a bigger puzzle.

For people required to register—registrants—and their families, the questions are simple: Who receives an update? Who can change a record? How is a mistake corrected? What does the money supporting this work accomplish?

What this article follows: The records, offices, paid positions, and services behind Florida’s registry—from registration and public notification to verification and enforcement.

These are selected examples, not a statewide cost estimate. County program costs and broader federal criminal-justice allocations measure different things.

FY means fiscal year: the accounting year used for a budget or grant. It can differ from the January–December calendar year.

What one county budget shows

Polk’s FY2025–26 budget book reports FY2023–24 spending on the tracking program of $295,099, support from the General Fund—the county’s general operating fund—and funded staffing equivalent to 2.1 full-time jobs.

For FY2023–24, Program 231500 reported 1,459 sexual offenders/predators verified and 233 arrests for violations resulting in criminal prosecutions. Its FY2025–26 adopted budget—the approved spending plan—lists $297,882 and a target of 200 arrests.

Polk measures performance partly through its arrests resulting in prosecution. Prosecution brings charges to court; it does not mean the person was convicted. The measure does not identify new sexual crimes or necessarily count different people. The public also needs to know what the violations involved, how cases ended, whether address errors were corrected, and whether people were able to comply. Case records and the program’s counting instructions would help answer those questions. Activity counts alone cannot show whether the work prevented harm.

OPPAGA, Florida’s legislative research office, reported in its 2024 review that registration-violation conviction rates were 60% for arrests in 2014 and 45% for arrests in 2022. It excluded 2023 because many cases remained open. An arrest count needs to be followed through the court process.

The budgeted staffing equals work hours, not a confirmed employee headcount; funded jobs may be vacant. The verification measure needs a clear counting rule. These figures do not establish payment per arrest.

Polk gives us one example of the people, money, and activity behind registry work. The next connection is the information itself: where it goes after someone reports it.

Information given at a Florida registration appointment can travel far beyond that office. Photographs, address updates, and reported moves can reach state agencies, other jurisdictions (such as states and territories), public searches, and email alerts.

The registry count needs context

OPPAGA—the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability, Florida’s legislative research office—separated the registry into these groups in its October 2024 snapshot. The full total includes people outside Florida and people in custody, so it cannot be read as the number living in Florida communities.

Florida registry snapshot: October 2024
Status	People
Living in Florida communities	30,907
Confined: incarcerated or civilly committed	20,742
Non-Florida residents	33,465
Absconded; whereabouts unknown	1,093
Total, excluding deceased records	86,207

This October 2024 snapshot is not a current headcount.

The same snapshot lists 24,135 community registrants as “Sentence Served – Required to Register.” Registration and probation are separate obligations. Completing a sentence does not necessarily end registration.

A program serving people in the community covers a different population from the full registry. That matters when comparing headcounts, workloads, and costs.

The connections begin in Florida’s statutes

Section 943.0435 directs sheriffs to send registration information, photographs, fingerprints, and palm prints to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE). It also covers motor-vehicle information, verification, and notices about certain moves and travel.

Sections 944.607 and 944.606 connect courts, corrections, and county jails to registration and release reporting. Section 775.21 separately sets duties for people designated as sexual predators.

Selected documented connections
Part of the framework	Documented connection
County sheriff’s office	Collects registration information and transmits specified materials to FDLE.
Driver-license and identification offices	Forward specified photographs and information to FDLE.
Courts, corrections, and county jails	Provide registration or release information through statutory channels.
FDLE and local law enforcement	Share verification responsibilities and authorized information tools.
Public notification services	Provide searches, maps, and automatic alerts using jurisdictional information.

Several offices can be involved in the same person’s record. One may take the registration report, another may check the address, and another may handle supervision or investigate a possible violation. Knowing who did what matters when a record needs attention.

The system reaches identity documents and qualifying juvenile cases. Section 322.141 requires specified license and ID markings: “SEXUAL PREDATOR” or “943.0435, F.S.” Here, F.S. means Florida Statutes, the state’s written laws.

Section 985.4815 assigns duties to clerks, juvenile justice officials, and sheriffs, including electronic reporting compatible with the Florida Crime Information Center (FCIC). It applies only to the specific juvenile cases covered by the law.

Illustration: following one address update

Suppose someone reports a new home address. This hypothetical example follows the information after a report; it is not a complete list of reporting duties.

The report reaches FDLE. Florida law directs the sheriff to forward registration information to the state.
Agencies can use the record. Authorized agency users can view information and perform specified updates within their permissions.
Public information can change. FDLE says its public website updates continuously as agencies send information. Downloaded copies have their own update limits.
A mistake needs a correction trail. FDLE provides a contact for published errors. The person affected also needs to know which source record was fixed and whether earlier notices or copies were corrected.

CJNET: what the agency connection means for registrants

The Florida Criminal Justice Network (CJNET) connects authorized agencies to state and national resources. Florida’s Sexual Offender/Predator System (SOPS) is the agency registry application. The public website shows selected information; agency users may hold additional information within their permissions.

Different parts of the information system
Component	Documented function	Meaning for a registrant
CJNET	Network connecting authorized agencies to criminal-justice resources.	A connection route; access still depends on the resource and user’s authorization.
SOPS	Florida’s agency registry application, with record viewing and specified update functions.	Agency workflow extends beyond the public search page.
Cyber Communication System (CCS)	Online reporting of specified updates by eligible registrants.	A registrant reporting tool; distinct from authorized agency access through CJNET.
Public registry and National Sex Offender Public Website (NSOPW)	Public searches and selected published information; NSOPW searches participating jurisdictions.	Public results have accuracy limits and legal disclosure restrictions.
Florida Crime Information Center (FCIC) and National Crime Information Center (NCIC)	State and national criminal-justice resources; the national registry file is within NCIC.	A registry entry and a wanted-person entry serve different purposes.
FL LEMobile	Law-enforcement field tool for residence checks, maps, and field submissions.	Field verification information can be submitted through a mobile interface.

Viewing a record and changing a record are different permissions

FDLE describes record viewing, limited field and address-check updates, enhanced searches, and national registry submissions through CJNET. Each function has its own permissions. Access to one tool does not give every officer unrestricted editing rights.

FDLE’s 2023 guide describes electronic signatures and fingerprints, transient-residence check-ins (a legal residence category that can include shelter locations without a street address), document uploads, and verification reminders. Some features require an appointed Agency Administrator. This dated workflow guide must be read alongside later laws and notices.

Limited Access users need eligible agency affiliation, training, an exam, and annual certification. Their searches depend on job duties, tools, and device restrictions; they cannot add hot-file entries—law-enforcement alert records, such as wanted-person entries. Certification does not grant SOPS editing rights. FBI policy also limits access to assigned tasks.

CCS is the registrant’s reporting tool

FDLE’s October 2025 guide allows registrants outside corrections or juvenile justice supervision to use the optional Cyber Communication System (CCS) for specified updates. They can report at the sheriff’s office instead. CCS does not replace scheduled re-registration.

For an employment update, users enter the information and save it. The CCS guide says “Pending Review” changes are generally reviewed and accepted within one business day. Sending an update, having it accepted, and seeing it on the public website are separate steps.

Field verification can feed the agency record

FL LEMobile connects fieldwork to agency records: due and assigned residence checks, maps, directions, and verification submissions. Its location permission concerns the official’s device and reported locations; it does not establish continuous tracking of a registrant’s phone.

FDLE’s notice effective October 1, 2025 distinguishes address verification from twice-yearly or quarterly re-registration. Neither replaces the other. Updates go through the sheriff, supervising agency, or CCS where applicable.

What is collected, what is published, and what can be corrected

Sections 943.0435 and 775.21 require identifying details, photographs, fingerprints, palm prints, residences, employment, vehicles, phones, email addresses, and Internet identifiers. They also cover campus connections, passports, immigration documents, professional licenses, moves, and international travel. Access depends on permissions; this list does not describe every CJNET screen.

Collection and public disclosure have different limits. FDLE publishes selected registration information unless exempt. Section 119.071 protects Social Security numbers, fingerprints, and palm prints. Section 943.043 restricts online display of vehicles owned by people not required to register. Each information category needs its own access and disclosure check.

Public records can be downloaded and copied

FDLE’s August 2025 memo permits automated downloads. The registration-list file updates every four hours and is “obsolete as soon as the file is generated.” Website amendments occur in real time.

A correction on the website leaves a practical question: did it also reach people holding an older download? Notices and updates should leave a trail that can be checked.

FDLE also warns that being listed does not indicate an individual’s risk level. That matters when interpreting a map or flyer.

FDLE says it compiles information from corrections, motor-vehicle officials, law enforcement, and registrants without independently confirming accuracy. Other agencies may verify it. Published errors can be reported to the Offender Registry Services Bureau: 888-357-7332 or sexpred@fdle.state.fl.us.

When told someone is not at a reported address, FDLE describes adding a remark and, when appropriate, seeking a warrant. A field note alone is not an automatic arrest trigger.

The FBI says an NCIC match alone does not establish probable cause—the legal grounds needed for an arrest. Agencies must confirm information before official action.

A federal audit found gaps—and FDLE made corrections

OPPAGA reports that a 2022 FBI audit sampled 30 records; 27 had information missing from the national registry. FDLE corrected programming and reinforced training. More than 1,000 records also bypassed automated record checks; FDLE fixed that error. These findings concern missing information and a small sample, not a registry-wide error rate.

The public needs to know what failed, what was fixed, and how the fix was checked. Accuracy is one question. A record of who looked up the information is another.

What the access logs can tell us

FDLE’s training describes a five-year archive of FCIC/NCIC database searches and responses on Florida devices, called Transaction Archive Reports, and auditable transactions. FBI policy distinguishes logging capability from always activating it. Neither establishes SOPS’s exact logging or a complete history of views of one person’s record.

FDLE’s public-records page links a request portal and 2026 guide. Contacts: publicrecords@fdle.state.fl.us or 850-410-7676. Requests cover existing records; FDLE need not create records or answer questions. Specify the record, event, and dates to help control costs.

A disputed address or status could be traced through existing registration forms, changes, verification records, and available access logs. Release depends on legal exemptions, redactions (removing protected information), and charges. Section 119.07 requires nonexempt portions and the legal basis for withholding information; a complete lookup history is not guaranteed.

County and city rules meet the statewide system

Local rules add another layer. OPPAGA counted 196 local ordinances (city and county laws) in jurisdictions across 52 counties as of September 2024. Depending on the place, state, county, and city requirements can meet at the same address.

Brevard’s registration and tracking unit handles registration, notification, verification, and investigations. Its courtesy address-review guidance directs people considering a home inside a city with its own police department to that department. One address can involve county and city offices.

The Justice Department’s SMART Office, which supports national registration and notification standards, describes notifications to law enforcement, prosecutors, supervision agencies, schools, and public housing, alongside public notices. Recipients have different access levels. FDLE says its website updates continuously as criminal-justice partners send information.

FDLE’s December 31, 2025 report lists 3,450 new public-registry entries and more than 5,900 travel notifications to other states and territories in 2025. It also describes programming, document, and website changes to implement legislation.

These figures show recordkeeping and communication. A website addition does not tell us that a new sexual crime occurred, and more than one travel notice may concern the same person. To assess safety, the public needs outcomes as well as activity counts.

The connection reaches into courts and corrections

A reporting violation can bring the work into court. Under Section 943.0435(9)(a), listed failures to register or report required information can be prosecuted as felonies. A charge about a registration requirement is different from a charge for a new sexual offense.

For felony violations covered by Section 943.0435(9)(b), committed on or after July 1, 2018, the court must impose community control with electronic monitoring if it does not impose prison. The minimum terms are 6 months for a first offense, 1 year for a second, and 2 years for a third or later offense.

Community control means intensive supervision with restrictions on a person’s freedom in the community. This connects reporting duties to court orders, supervision, and monitoring. Case and spending records would show the outcome and cost for a particular person; an arrest announcement cannot answer those questions.

Following outcomes also involves shared records. FDC—the Florida Department of Corrections—describes a longstanding agreement in its July 2026 recidivism report. It sends prison-release and probation-admission records to FDLE’s Statistical Analysis Center. FDLE matches criminal-history records and returns arrest and conviction information; FDC uses its own records to determine incarceration. That reporting process covers broader release and supervision groups, not just registrants.

The reasons for a return also matter. For probation and community-control proceedings, Florida law defines a technical violation as an alleged supervision violation that is not a new felony, misdemeanor, or criminal traffic offense. Registry violations can be criminal charges, so they should not all be labeled technical violations. A return to prison does not, by itself, tell us whether there was a new sexual offense, a registry charge, another crime, or a supervision violation.

Paid positions connect reporting duties to daily work

The money terms matter. A budget is a spending plan. An allocation assigns an amount to a recipient or purpose. An award approves a grant. Recorded expenses show costs entered in accounting records; confirming that a payment cleared the bank is a separate step. The Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) is a federal program for a broad range of criminal-justice work. Its allocation formula is explained below.

All of this work depends on people. Job postings show duties and advertised pay. Payroll and spending records show which jobs were filled and what was actually paid.

Orange County Sheriff’s Office job 24-00315, opened February 25, 2025, advertised $36,171–$54,537 annually for an Investigative Service Officer in the Sexual Offender Surveillance Squad. Duties included databases, documents, agency and registrant communication, and registration support.

Brevard’s 2026 Registration Specialist posting advertised $17.50 an hour for work involving sexual offenders, sexual predators, and felons. Mixed duties limit how much of the salary can be assigned to one registration category.

A salary notice starts the question; payroll answers more of it. Filled positions, earnings, benefits, overtime, and time spent on mixed assignments would show the cost of the work.

FDLE’s 2025 legislative highlights identify $446,220 from the state’s general operating revenue and staffing equivalent to two full-time jobs for sexual-offender and predator enforcement. The Governor’s FY2025–26 announcement describes the same allocation: count it once. Payroll and spending remain separate questions.

FDLE’s annual registry maintenance and support

FDLE Cabinet reports identify annual software-support purchases. Florida Accountability Contract Tracking System (FACTS), the state’s contract-record database, separately shows maintenance vouchers (accounting entries for payments) for the Florida Offender Alert System (FOAS), its public email-alert service.

Selected FDLE registry support records: three completed fiscal years
Fiscal year	Selected registry computer-support purchase	FOAS maintenance recorded in FACTS
FY2023–24	$170,000 · C21243	$57,499.76
FY2024–25	$170,000 · C3D3CF	$59,224.74
FY2025–26	$170,000 · C5C687	$60,099.96

Each selected computer-support purchase covers July 1–June 30. The first describes systems analysis and programming; later reports list 2,000 information-technology (IT) support hours. These are purchase amounts. FOAS vouchers are grouped by FACTS-assigned fiscal year under C0923 and already included in the vendor subtotal below.

These selected records cover part of FDLE’s registry support. The agency’s FY2025–26 budget summary lists $93,635,754 and 400 positions for the broader Criminal Justice Information program. Calculating a registry-only total would require payroll, contracts, expenses, and a defensible share of costs used by more than one program.

Pinellas shows local spending tied to statewide services

Pinellas’s Sexual Predator and Offender Tracking (SPOT) unit handles registration, paperwork, neighborhood notices, verification, surveillance, and suspected violations. It also handles career offenders, a separate registration category under Florida law, and links FDLE’s statewide searches, maps, and alerts.

SPOT’s career-offender work connects to Florida’s SB 1332 registration changes, effective October 1, 2026. Senate staff describe requirements “similar to those for sexual offenders and sexual predators.” Expanded reporting, annual registration visits, and penalties for specified failures add to the reporting and enforcement cycle. The legal designations remain separate.

Pinellas SPOT: adopted budget and reported actual spending
FY2024–25 measure	Amount	Evidence type
Adopted budget	$1,848,601	Spending authority in the adopted column.
Reported actual expenditures	$1,621,403	Personnel $1,616,249 plus operations $5,154.
Actual below adopted amount	$227,198	Calculated comparison; not a verified final available balance.

Reported spending was $227,198 below the adopted budget. Final or amended budgets and an explanation are needed to establish why. That difference alone does not show that grant money was returned.

SPOT’s mixed duties prevent treating its whole-unit cost as sexual-offender registry spending.

Pinellas grant letters report JAG awards for SPOT personnel: $105,000 under 2019-JAGC-3405 (October 10, 2019 letter; FY2018–19 amendment request) and $100,000 under 2020-JAGC-3625 (September 22, 2020 letter; FY2019–20). Payroll, approved amendments, and records assigning costs to the funded work would show how the awards were used.

Four adopted budgets for two county tracking programs

The next table follows the same two county programs across four adopted-budget years, FY2023–24 through FY2026–27. These amounts show approved spending plans, separate from actual costs.

Published adopted budgets for two named county tracking programs
Program	FY2023–24	FY2024–25	FY2025–26	FY2026–27
Pinellas SPOT unit	$1,752,977	$1,848,601	$1,807,441	$1,728,221
Polk Sexual Offender/Predator Tracking	$271,047	$276,984	$297,882	$302,674

These two programs are examples, not a statewide cost ranking. Pinellas includes career offenders. Polk lists General Fund support and 2.1 funded positions. Their duties and accounting differ, so the totals cannot be treated as identical measures of registry work.

Grant agreements, funding-source ledgers, spending, and closeout records would show each program’s federal share and use of funds.

Vendor contracts maintain a public notification component

The software also has an ongoing cost. FDLE records identify Watch Systems LLC as a FOAS maintenance vendor. Contract C0923 describes custom-built proprietary software using OffenderWatch technology and FDLE’s stated support and warranty arrangement.

C2119 specifies $13,750 quarterly payments in arrears, meaning payment after the service period. Later C0923 terms specify $15,024.99 quarterly, with credits tied to availability.

Selected FOAS voucher and accounting records
Official record	Entries	Recorded total after adjustments
C1413 / FDLE-014-13	32	$329,533.42
C2119 / FDLE-021-19	14	$192,500.00
C0923 / FDLE-009-23	14	$205,149.46
Purchase order C09A45	1	$14,162.50
Total of these extracted records	61	$741,345.38

These records span January 31, 2013–July 21, 2026: 57 positive vendor voucher entries and four signed reversal or accounting-adjustment entries. Voucher dates do not establish when a payment cleared the bank. The separate purchase-order voucher has different identifiers; agency confirmation would resolve possible duplication elsewhere.

Florida’s Department of Financial Services (DFS) lists a $15,024.99 warrant (a state payment order) to Watch Systems LLC under C0923, dated July 22, 2026. Document D7000027101 matches the prior day’s FACTS voucher. It corroborates an existing amount, not additional spending; no bank-clearing date is shown.

C0923’s original contract ceiling—the maximum authorized amount—was $175,099.48. An approved amendment raised it to $220,174.45. Its recorded accounting total is $205,149.46. These figures describe the same arrangement and must not be added together.

Jacksonville lists two finally closed purchase orders: 695125-25, June 30, 2025, $19,335.67 for an annual OffenderWatch subscription; and 673500-24, March 4, 2024, $6,100 for a sexual-offender mailout. Invoices, vouchers, and records of payments sent would help verify payments.

Local fees create another funding connection

Putnam Ordinance 2025-021, adopted August 26, 2025, sets $50 for new initial registrations, $25 per periodic re-registration, and $10 for address changes outside scheduled registration, with listed exemptions. People unable to pay must still be registered and receive an invoice. It takes effect upon state filing; that date was not recovered.

Jacksonville publishes a $25 registration charge. In OPPAGA’s 2024 survey, seven of 50 responding sheriff’s offices (of 67 statewide) charged fees: $15–$75 initially and $5–$25 for re-registration. Uses included general funds and registration costs.

Fees put some of the cost directly on registrants. Collection ledgers, waivers, unpaid balances, and fund transfers would show how much was collected and where it went.

The cost of following the rules

The cost of complying also includes time. OPPAGA’s survey found 57% of registration locations operated during regular business hours. For someone working those hours, a visit may require travel and time away from work.

Among responding offices reporting transient populations, 33% cited residency restrictions—rules limiting where someone can live—as a contributing factor to transience. Those responses do not establish why any particular person became homeless.

Florida law requires sexual offenders maintaining a transient residence to report in person at the sheriff’s office every 30 days. Each visit also creates information for the office to process. Housing stability, reporting duties, and verification work are connected.

Federal standards have a financial connection

Sections 943.0435(6) and 775.21(8) tie verification systems to applicable federal standards, including conditions attached to Florida’s receipt of federal funds.

Section 943.0436(1) records legislative concern that unmet federal requirements can jeopardize public-safety funding. Whether money was actually lost in a particular year requires the allocation and implementation records.

The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) uses a baseline JAG formula that weights population and reported violent crime equally for states. Direct local allocations depend on the local share of reported violent crime. Registry-compliance adjustments are separate.

SORNA, the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, connects implementation to funding. SMART describes an annually assessed 10% reduction in the applicable state-side JAG allocation for nonimplementation, with specified exceptions. Separate direct local allocations are generally unaffected. Compliant jurisdictions can receive bonuses from those reductions.

OPPAGA reports a $491,477 Florida compliance bonus in federal FY2023; the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) lists a $464,968 SORNA bonus allocation for FY2024. Award budgets and spending ledgers would show their use across JAG’s eligible purposes.

Implementation incentives do not establish payments per registrant, address check, or arrest. Additional local rules have separate authority.

SMART says SORNA’s minimum requirements depend on the offenses covered by the law. Risk assessment can inform supervision, treatment, and some notification decisions. This does not make every Florida rule federally required or identify a particular Florida assessment tool.

Four years of broader federal criminal-justice funding

Federal FY2023–FY2026 are the latest four published JAG allocation years. They show a broad criminal-justice funding stream. The allocation tables do not identify how much supported registry work.

Federal source: Congress approves JAG funding through federal spending laws. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) administers it through the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) and BJA.

State-administered awards go through FDLE for approved state projects and local subawards—grants the state passes on to local recipients. Eligible counties and cities receive separate direct local BJA awards. Both routes are DOJ funding; allocation tables do not identify registry spending.

Florida JAG allocations: state-administered and direct local funding
Federal fiscal year	State-administered allocation	Direct local allocations	Combined Florida allocation
2023	$12,421,604	$6,890,099	$19,311,703
2024	$10,717,097	$5,808,926	$16,526,023
2025	$11,948,239	$6,587,011	$18,535,250
2026	$10,944,598	$5,846,520	$16,791,118
Four-year sum	$46,031,538	$25,132,556	$71,164,094

Florida’s combined four-year allocation is $71.16 million. The state column includes local pass-throughs, meaning funds the state passes on to local recipients. Signed grant awards, drawdowns (cash requested from an approved federal award), and spending records would verify receipt and use.

SORNA and Prison Rape Elimination Act adjustments may be included in published allocations; never add included bonuses again. Separate FY2025 and FY2026 SORNA bonus amounts were not independently verified.

The five largest county-government direct allocations

The table follows the five largest county-government direct allocations in FY2026 back through FY2023. Rankings in earlier years may differ.

Leading county-government direct JAG allocations, ranked by FY2026
FY2026 rank	County government	FY2023	FY2024	FY2025	FY2026
1	Miami-Dade	$517,346	$383,023	$444,854	$477,515
2	Orange	$438,256	$383,673	$445,105	$273,714
3	Hillsborough	$168,612	$148,372	$172,129	$160,998
4	Escambia	$137,684	$121,157	$140,556	$129,041
5	Pasco	$134,699	$118,530	$137,509	$126,243

These broad allocations are already in Florida’s direct local totals. County applications and approved budgets would identify any registry use.

BJA classifies Jacksonville as municipal, so its $510,251 FY2026 allocation is outside this county ranking. Joint-group totals are also excluded; all five selected counties are outside those groups. This ranks named county governments, not every federal dollar reaching their geographic areas.

Population and reported violent crime, eligibility, and annual congressional funding decisions affect JAG allocations. To see the size and spending of a registry unit, the public needs its program budget, payroll, and grant records.

Newer grant priorities include registry work

Executive Order 14321, July 24, 2025, directed departments to assess lawful discretionary-grant priorities, including SORNA compliance and mapping and checking registrants without fixed addresses.

BJA’s FY25 and FY2026 Public Safety and Mental Health Initiative notices use that criterion. Qualifying state applicants may request priority consideration; it does not guarantee funding.

Those initiatives also cover crisis response, treatment, housing access, and related services. A Florida award and approved budget would identify any registry share.

The FY25 SMART implementation-grant notice covers technology, collaboration, verification, and corrections to national records. Its measures include training, accessible records, transmissions, and information exchanges. The Florida award below shows planned work; the notice’s requirements for keeping that work going are discussed later.

A Florida award shows the planned work

The official federal award record for FDLE’s grant for registry work lists $399,993 committed for a project running March 1, 2026–February 28, 2029. Planned uses include 1 staff member, partner-agency training, software, supplies, and other registry support.

The project plans work across several years. The committed amount is not a verified payment total. Grant financial reports and FDLE’s accounting records would show what was paid and how it was used.

Palm Beach shows the difference between an award and spending

Palm Beach’s October 19, 2010 packet documents award 2010-WP-BX-0006: $150,000 for Comprehensive Approaches to Sex Offender Management. Its strategy included risk-based management, registration compliance, training, equipment, supplies, contracts, and overtime through the sheriff’s grant fund.

County audits list expenditures of $37,553 in FY2011, $41,820 in FY2012, $7,853 in FY2013, and $55,120 in FY2014: $142,346 combined.

The $150,000 award and $142,346 in expenses describe overlapping money. They cannot be added together. Amendments and closeout records would explain the remaining difference; the subtraction alone does not show unused or returned funds.

Federal support can also reach a local operation

An April 16, 2024 U.S. Marshals account describes an August 19, 2019 discussion about a sex-offender operation it was funding for St. Johns County. It gives no amount, award identifier, invoice, or payment date.

An agreement, reimbursement limits, claims, payroll or equipment records, and payment records would establish what the operation cost and who paid. An agency-wide budget cannot answer that operation-specific question.

What “use it or lose it” means for a grant

BJA’s August 2026 guidance requires JAG funds to be legally committed during the project period, which can span years. Properly incurred obligations—costs the grant recipient has legally agreed to pay—must be paid within 120 days afterward. Uncommitted or unspent funds, including interest, must be returned at closeout, the final accounting and reporting when a grant ends.

DOJ allows justified extensions without additional funding, but not solely to use an uncommitted balance.

That is the documented “use it or lose it” rule. To find out whether a deadline affected an operation, follow its award, project dates, approved activities, amendments, balances, obligations, extensions, and closeout reports. The rule does not establish that arrests are required to retain funding, or that county operating budgets follow the same deadlines.

Why the infrastructure keeps operating

The work does not end with one appointment, one employee, or one grant. Florida law assigns continuing duties, agencies maintain the systems, and later budgets and grant applications decide how the work will be supported. One person leaving the registry does not automatically end those wider functions.

The federal connection is recurring. SMART assesses SORNA implementation annually; failure to maintain substantial implementation—meeting SORNA’s implementation standard as determined by DOJ—can reduce the applicable state-side JAG allocation by 10%. JAG’s baseline formula uses population and reported violent crime, not registry headcount. A person leaving the registry is not a per-person deduction from that formula.

The separate FY2025 SMART funding notice asks applicants to explain how their program and grant-funded positions will continue after the award ends. That plan—called sustainability—carries 5% of the application review score. It concerns continuing the work and positions, rather than retaining a named employee. It supports planned continuity without guaranteeing permanent funding or jobs.

If a state declines JAG, the money has another route

Federal law expressly addresses a state choosing not to participate. Under 34 U.S.C. §10156(f), after the Attorney General makes the required determination, the state’s allocation—or the relevant portion—must be awarded to local governments within that state. Priority goes to jurisdictions with the highest annual numbers of reported Part 1 violent crimes over the three most recent available calendar years.

Withdrawal can change who receives the money and which projects it supports. Eligible local governments also have a separate direct JAG application route. Leaving the state-administered program does not automatically remove JAG funding from Florida’s geographic area. These remain broad criminal-justice funds; approved local budgets would identify any registry use.

Ending an existing award also leaves termination and closeout responsibilities: written notice, final reports, matching the accounting records to those reports, and returning excess cash received from the award. Unspent award balances are cancelled; costs found ineligible under the grant rules may have to be repaid. Leaving the program does not automatically require repayment of every properly spent dollar. Federal property rules and continuing audit responsibilities can also apply.

The legal duties are another layer. Florida’s registration law continues to assign work to FDLE and local agencies independently of accepting JAG. Federal SORNA rules can separately apply to covered individuals even when their jurisdiction does not substantially implement SORNA. State removal and federal duties therefore need separate examination.

This is a hypothetical funding route. It shows how the work can continue through different sources of money. The infrastructure can change, but ending a grant relationship alone does not change the laws assigning the work.

The public deserves clear answers

These records connect county offices, state agencies, national databases, and paid services. The public deserves to know who handles the information, how errors are corrected, where the money goes, and what the work accomplishes.

Florida requires OPPAGA to review registry effectiveness every three years and identify corrective options and projected costs when it finds deficiencies. That review should help show whether mistakes are corrected and people can comply.

This is still only the tip of the iceberg. More of this infrastructure needs to be traced, including registry-specific county costs, actual grant spending, correction notices, and enforcement outcomes. These records affect people’s homes, jobs, travel, and families. The people living under these rules deserve clear answers and dignity.

Research scope and calculation notes — click to open

⚡ Media Tuesday #4— The Buzz: After the Call Part Two, FAC v. Glass & Registry News

FAC_Media — Tue, 06 Oct 2026 12:30:15 +0000

Florida Action Committee Media

MEDIA TUESDAY — THE BUZZ

Tuesday, October 6, 2026

Media • Legal Developments • Community • Ways to Take Action

This week, we pick up where After the Call left off. We heard what a threatening call can do to a person and their family. Part Two asks what help should follow, and whether the people targeted are receiving the protection they deserve.

We also have a quick update on FAC’s lawsuit, four recent FAC articles worth catching up on, national stories to follow, and a few ways each of us can help keep this work moving.

Don’t miss the latest report on Florida’s Registry: Rules, Records and Public Money, dropping on the FAC website today at 9 am EST! #Florida #Registry #Records #Money

This Week’s Lead

After the Call — Part Two

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 6 • 10:00 AM EASTERN

The warning is a beginning. What happens after someone asks for help?

Part Two asks what help should follow a scam threat: clear reporting, dependable follow-up, and support for affected families. It connects that question to dignity, reentry, and the responsibility to protect people whose registry information is publicly exposed.

Public safety should include the person reporting a crime, regardless of the label beside their name.

Watch Full Part Two

Need info but no time? Click here

Before Part Two: A Quick Look Back

After the Call — Part One

Part One shows how callers impersonating law enforcement use arrest threats and demands for money to frighten registrants and families. The call ends, but the fear and stress can remain.

Watch Full Part One

FAC Legal Update

FAC v. Glass: A Trial Date and an Amended Complaint

Our September 29 weekly update reports a November 8, 2027 trial date and a June 1, 2027 deadline for summary-judgment motions. The judge encouraged filing those motions at the earliest appropriate time.

The amended complaint adds a civil-conspiracy claim and describes Florida’s registry as an interconnected system of state laws, local ordinances, registration duties, and coordinated enforcement. Please read last week’s weekly update below.

We thank you for all your help and for every declaration submitted. A special thank-you to our Legal Committee for all their efforts and tireless work on this case.

Read the Weekly Update

Follow the Case

National Watch

Beyond Florida: Two Stories Worth Reading

COMMUNITY & REENTRY • SEPTEMBER 28 COMMENTARY

When insurance concerns shape who can worship

In a NARSOL commentary, Matt Snell examines how insurance coverage, liability concerns, and risk-management advice can influence whether people on the registry are welcomed into houses of worship.

He argues that institutions need to consider what their commitments to dignity and restoration mean in practice. He also recognizes the responsibility to maintain safeguards and address actual risks.

This is an opinion piece, rather than a new law or court ruling. It is worth reading alongside our conversation about rebuilding a life: community support matters, and access to that support can depend on decisions made well beyond a courtroom.

Read Matt Snell’s “Insured Against Grace” →

CALIFORNIA • OCTOBER 5 REPORT • COURT WATCH

Housing instability and a failure-to-register case

According to Davis Vanguard, a Yolo County judge on October 2 declined to dismiss a felony failure-to-register charge against an unhoused man. His public defender argued that the requirements were unreasonable for people without stable housing and raised concerns about competency restoration and access to treatment.

The prosecutor opposed dismissal, arguing that monitoring served public safety. The judge denied the dismissal motion, and the report describes a referral to CARE Court with a hearing set for October 30.

This is a pending case. The defense’s arguments are not court findings. It brings a practical question into view: when someone is struggling with housing and treatment, what response will help them comply and become more stable?

Read Rowan Barnell’s Davis Vanguard report →

Four Recent FAC Articles Worth Reading

These articles help explain the questions behind this week’s video: what the law requires, what enforcement accomplishes, and what happens to the people living under those rules.

“It’s the Law”: The Human Side of Registry Enforcement

Published October 4, this FAC commentary looks at the difficult questions facing officers and families. It brings together law-enforcement perspectives, housing concerns, and the responsibility of lawmakers to examine the rules they create. An arrest can be legally authorized while still leaving serious questions about whether the law helped anyone become safer or resolved the problem in a humane way.

Read “It’s the Law”

FDLE Registry Enforcement History Under Mark Glass and Its Continued Burdens

Published October 2, this public-records analysis follows enforcement during Glass’s leadership and the reporting burdens that continue after a change at the top. It separates registration allegations from new sexual-offense allegations and puts arrest announcements alongside legal duties and family experiences. The public deserves to know what the numbers actually represent and what the system achieved.

Read the Mark Glass Analysis

Pinellas Deputies Accused of Police Database Misuse

FAC’s October 3 report examines two separate cases involving former deputies accused of using police databases for personal reasons. It asks who checks access to sensitive information and how improper searches are discovered. The charges remain allegations; neither case establishes retaliation against a registrant. The broader question matters to our community: what safeguards protect people from misuse of government access?

Read the Pinellas Report

Common sense arrives in Australia

In its October 5 commentary, FAC reports concerns raised about a proposed public-notification law in Australia. Critics question whether public identification could create false reassurance, encourage vigilantism, and make housing, employment, and reintegration harder. The proposal is still being debated. It gives readers another example of lawmakers asking whether a tougher-sounding policy actually reduces harm.

Read the Australia Article

This Tuesday

Three Things You Can Do

1. Watch and share Part Two. Help get the scam-prevention conversation to a family, caregiver, or community member who could use it.

2. Sign and share the petition. Already signed? Send it to someone new and tell them why you added your name.

3. Help us follow the stories. Send FAC Media a source link, a local development, or an experience you think deserves attention. Let us know whether we may share your account publicly.

Contact FAC Media

Make an Impact

Two Ways to Move This Work Forward

Add Your Voice

Help the U.N. Petition Reach 10,000

9,667

VERIFIED SIGNATURES

Just 333 more signatures to reach 10,000

Count checked October 5, 2026

The petition asks the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to investigate public sex-offender registration in the United States and the human-rights concerns it raises.

Already signed? Share it with someone new and tell them why you added your name.

Let people hear from you. You can also upload a short video on the petition page to share what you think and why this matters to you. A few words in your own voice can help others understand the people behind the signatures. If you can, please share your video and the petition with others.

Sign, Comment & Share →

Fuel the Work

Support FAC’s Work

Your support helps sustain FAC’s litigation, media, research, public education, and advocacy.

LEGAL FUNDRAISING GOAL

$134,163 raised

Toward our $170,000 goal

79% reached • $35,837 to go

FAC fundraising figures as of October 1, 2026

Please Donate to the FAC Legal Fund →

Tax-Deductible Giving

For information about making a tax-deductible donation through Florida Action Foundation, Inc., a 501(c)(3) organization, contact the Foundation.

Admin@floridaactionfoundation.org

TWO THOUGHTS FOR THIS WEEK

Today, I could not decide between two quotes I have saved and liked over the years, so I am sharing both.

“My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together.”

— Desmond Tutu
Source: Global Fund for Children

“The opposite of love is not hate, it’s indifference.”

— Elie Wiesel
Source: The Elie Wiesel Foundation

These words belong alongside this week’s stories. People on the registry and their families still need safe homes, community support, and reliable help when someone threatens them. Those needs deserve attention from a system that says it exists to protect the public.

Keep asking the questions. Keep sharing the facts. Keep making room for the people behind the labels.

FLORIDA ACTION COMMITTEE

INFORMATION. PARTICIPATION. COMMUNITY.
WITH UNITY COMES CHANGE.

FAC Website •
FAC YouTube •
FAC v. Glass
U.N. Petition •
Donate •
Contact Media

The post ⚡ Media Tuesday #4— The Buzz: After the Call Part Two, FAC v. Glass & Registry News appeared first on Florida Action Committee (FAC).

Why Do So Many Epstein Witnesses Keep Dying?

FAC-3 — Tue, 06 Oct 2026 12:23:09 +0000

This is totally off topic, but a curiosity when considering the way sexual offenses are investigated and prosecuted (or not) when it comes to the powerful.

Jeffrey Epstein is dead. Officially, suicide by hanging in his Manhattan jail cell in August 2019 while awaiting trial on federal sex-trafficking charges. You’d think he’d wait until after his trial – after all, he had the top defense team and there was always the possibility of being acquitted. His death is still the topic of suspicion and speculation, but Epstein wasn’t the only person connected to this story who is now dead.

Jean-Luc Brunel was a powerful French modeling agent and longtime Epstein associate who was accused of helping supply girls to Epstein. He was awaiting trial in France on allegations including rape of minors and trafficking minors for sexual exploitation when he was found hanging in his prison cell in February 2022. Thomas Bowers, a former Deutsche Bank executive whose division handled Epstein’s accounts, died by suicide at his Malibu home in November 2019—only months after Epstein’s death. Steve Bing, a Hollywood producer who had been in contact with the FBI regarding Epstein, died by suicide after falling from a Los Angeles building in June 2020. Steven Hoffenberg, the convicted financier and Ponzi schemer who had been Epstein’s mentor and business associate, was found dead in his Connecticut apartment in August 2022. Joe Recarey, the Palm Beach detective who led the original 2005 investigation into Epstein, interviewed victims and helped build the case that ultimately resulted in Epstein’s 2008 conviction. Recarey died in 2018 at only 50. Alfredo Rodriguez, Epstein’s former Palm Beach household manager, obtained what became known as Epstein’s “little black book” and attempted to sell it to an undercover FBI agent. He was sentenced to prison for obstruction and died in 2014 from mesothelioma. Daniel Siad, a French modeling scout, corresponded extensively with Epstein about young women and teenage girls. His name reportedly appears nearly 2,000 times in the Epstein files. He was found dead at his home near Paris in July 2026. Virginia Giuffre was one of Epstein’s most prominent accusers and one of the people who helped expose the network publicly. She later sued Prince Andrew, alleging that Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell trafficked her to him when she was a teenager. She died by suicide in Australia in April 2025. Two other accusers also died.

And now, according to a report yesterday in Forbes, Simon Andriesz, a 57-year-old British banker and former BGC executive, is dead. Andriesz had been raising concerns about his former employer and alleged connections between BGC’s then-CEO Howard Lutnick and Epstein. He reportedly provided information to the FBI and gave evidence to the House Oversight Committee concerning Epstein-related matters. He had also publicly complained about the consequences of his whistleblowing and alleged retaliation. He was found dead in Cornwall last month. Reports say his death was suicide.

These deaths do not prove a conspiracy, but how many witnesses connected to one of the most notorious trafficking scandals in modern history can possibly die? That’s a lot of coincidences! Maybe it’s really all just coincidence. Maybe.

The post Why Do So Many Epstein Witnesses Keep Dying? appeared first on Florida Action Committee (FAC).

Remembering Michael McGuire. The Registrant Who Never Stopped Fighting

FAC-3 — Tue, 06 Oct 2026 11:56:59 +0000

On August 22, 2025, Michael A. McGuire filed a federal civil rights lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. The case is McGuire v. Richardson, No. 2:25-cv-00681. It was the latest step in a fight he had carried on for more than a decade against the way Alabama treats people on its sex offender registry. The defendants are Montgomery Police Officer Jadarius Charles Richardson, his supervisor Heather Williams, the Montgomery Police Department, and the City of Montgomery. McGuire alleged that he was arrested and prosecuted without probable cause after a so-called “home-compliance check,” the kind of visit registrants across the country know too well.

McGuire had moved back to his hometown of Montgomery in 2010. According to the complaint, he had not committed a crime since 1985, had never harmed a child, and had been off probation and parole for more than thirty years. Even so, the Alabama Sex Offender Registration and Community Notification Act (ASORCNA) kept him from living with his wife, and for a time he lived under a bridge. That changed in May 2024, when a federal court ruled in McGuire v. Marshall that parts of ASORCNA’s residence restrictions were unconstitutional as applied to him and others. The complaint also describes years of harassment by Montgomery police during home checks. Officers pounding on his doors and windows, threatening arrest, and demanding proof that he lived where he was registered. His attorney sent the City a cease-and-desist letter about this conduct in 2017.

The events behind the lawsuit started on July 24, 2023, when McGuire completed his quarterly registration at the address he had shared with his nephew since 2021, a home both the police and the sheriff’s office had approved. The next day, officers led by Richardson came to the house without notice, invitation, or a warrant. The complaint says they pounded on the door and repeatedly yelled profanities demanding it be opened. McGuire was terrified and hid in a closet. His nephew feared the officers were about to break in, so when he opened the door he told them McGuire did not live there. Two days later, Richardson used that one statement as the basis for an arrest warrant charging McGuire with failing to report a change of residence. On August 4, 2023, about eight officers in unmarked vehicles surrounded McGuire with guns drawn in his wife’s driveway and took him to jail. He was released that evening after his family posted bond.

At the preliminary hearing on August 25, 2023. On cross-examination, Richardson admitted he had no reason to doubt McGuire’s address before the home check, he did not know the ASORCNA provisions he had charged McGuire under, it is not a crime for someone to lie to an officer during a compliance check, he never investigated further, and never even asked the nephew whether McGuire had ever lived there.

The nephew then testified that McGuire did live in the home and explained that he had lied only because the officers scared him. A neighbor confirmed that she regularly saw McGuire walking his dog there. The judge found no probable cause and dismissed the charge. In his federal lawsuit, McGuire brought three claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983: Malicious prosecution against Richardson. Supervisory liability against Williams. Municipal liability against the City and its police department, for failing to train and discipline officers who seek warrants based on unreliable home checks.

Sadly, Michael McGuire died on or about August 11, 2026. He spent his life refusing to accept that a decades-old conviction made him less than a full citizen with the right to be left alone in his own home. He never fought alone. His brother and attorney, Joseph Mitchell McGuire, stood beside him in every courtroom and never stopped fighting for him or for all registrants in Alabama. Together they were relentless in defending registrants’ rights. The Florida Action Committee extends its deepest condolences to the McGuire family.

May he rest in peace.

READ HIS COMPLAINT: McGuire v Richardson

The post Remembering Michael McGuire. The Registrant Who Never Stopped Fighting appeared first on Florida Action Committee (FAC).

Common sense arrives in Australia

FAC-3 — Mon, 05 Oct 2026 20:46:30 +0000

For years, policymakers have been told that putting more information about people on public registries will automatically make communities safer. A recent debate in Australia suggests that some lawmakers over there are not so sure.

Lawmakers there are pushing back against aspects of a proposed law known as Daniel’s Law, which would create a system allowing members of the public to obtain information identifying people on the sex-offender register. The proposal was modeled on public notification systems used in the United States.

Their concerns sound remarkably familiar to anyone who has followed the registry debate in the United States. Critics of the proposal have warned that publicly identifying people on a registry can create a false sense of security, leading parents to believe that if someone’s name isn’t on the list, their children are safe from that person. But a public registry cannot identify the unregistered person who poses a risk. It cannot identify someone who has never been arrested. They also raised concerns about the consequences of public identification, including social isolation, employment and housing difficulties, and the potential for vigilantism. These aren’t theoretical concerns. They are precisely the consequences registry-reform advocates have been documenting for decades. And they also are concerned about another problem – policies that make it harder for people to obtain housing, employment and stable lives can undermine the very factors that help people successfully reintegrate into society and remain offense-free.

In other words, sometimes the policy that looks toughest isn’t necessarily the policy that makes people safest.

Perhaps Australia is beginning to discover what Florida and the rest of the United States should have learned by now. Public safety is not measured by how many people we can put on a website, how many restrictions we can impose, or how harsh a law sounds. It is measured by whether the policy actually reduces harm. It looks like common sense is finally coming to Australia and maybe it’s time for it to make the trip to Florida.

SOURCE

The post Common sense arrives in Australia appeared first on Florida Action Committee (FAC).

MO: Families of Registrants Get Rebuffed by 8th Circuit

FAC-3 — Mon, 05 Oct 2026 20:27:12 +0000

Spouses and children of registrants in Missouri argued their homes’ inclusion on the registry left them socially ostracized in violation of the 8th Amendment.
The plaintiffs argued that public access to the registry does not lower recidivism rates, that the psychological and social impacts the public registry inflicts upon innocent family members (spouses and children) was cruel, and that when the Supreme Court originally evaluated registries decades ago, search engine technology and internet accessibility did not exist as it does today.

In a disappointing decision, today an Eighth Circuit panel found Missouri’s public sex offender registry does not create “a permanent, inescapable badge of stigma”. In affirming a lower court’s ruling, the three-judge panel refused to revive claims that the registry — also known as SORA — is broadly punitive and violates their constitutional rights. “In their brief to this court, the Does do not cite a case supporting their theory that family members who are incidentally affected by Mo. SORA have a plausible constitutional claim,” Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Ralph R. Erickson, a Donald Trump appointee, wrote in the unanimous opinion.

Hastert, who spearheaded legislative initiatives to punish offenders while he was one himself, dead at 84

FAC-3 — Mon, 05 Oct 2026 18:44:02 +0000

Former Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, who backed laws such as the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Amendments of 1996, the Child Abuse Prevention and Enforcement Act of 2000, the PROTECT Act of 2003, and the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 died this past weekend at 84.

Hastert, was one of the biggest hypocrites in modern politics. While he was promoting himself as a crusader against the sexual abuse of children, it turns out he was hiding his own misdeeds. While working as a high school wrestling coach he molested 4 boys. Although the statue of limitations had passed for the sexual crimes, he was ultimately convicted for the more than three million in hush money he paid the victims.

The post Hastert, who spearheaded legislative initiatives to punish offenders while he was one himself, dead at 84 appeared first on Florida Action Committee (FAC).