The plaintiff, Lane Kirkpatrick, argued that forcing him to carry and present a driver’s license branded with “SEXUAL PREDATOR” violates the First Amendment by compelling him to communicate the government’s message every time he shows his ID. The State argued that he didn’t even have standing to bring the lawsuit. The court disagreed.

In fact, the judge found that Mr. Kirkpatrick did have standing, recognizing that he had presented evidence of real injuries, including a canceled hotel reservation, lost work opportunities, additional TSA screening, and the stigma he experiences whenever he has to present his license. The court also acknowledged that even a temporary violation of First Amendment rights is itself a cognizable injury.

So why did he lose? Not because the court decided the branding is constitutional. He lost because of the statute of limitations.

The court concluded that Mr. Kirkpatrick’s claim accrued when he first received a driver’s license bearing the “SEXUAL PREDATOR” designation in 2015. Because he didn’t file suit until 2023, the court held that his claim was filed too late under Florida’s four-year statute of limitations for § 1983 actions.

In fact, the judge closed the opinion by stating: “The Court makes no prediction as to the outcome of a challenge presented by a different plaintiff.” That is an important statement.

For those wondering what comes next, the opinion may actually point the way forward. FAC has spoken with an attorney for the Florida Justice Institute (who represented the Plaintiff). They are disappointed by the decision here, but not throwing in the towel by any means. If you are a person who was first issued a Florida driver’s license bearing the “SEXUAL PREDATOR” designation within the past four years, you would no have the same statute-of-limitations problem that prevented Mr. Kirkpatrick’s case from going forward. In other words, someone in that position could be a strong candidate to bring the very same constitutional challenge.

If that describes you and you are interested in pursuing such a case, please reach out to FAC. While we cannot provide legal advice or representation, we would like to hear from individuals who may be in a position to challenge this law before their limitations period expires and potentially make the introduction.

You can read the decision here: Kirkpatrick – Drivers License Case

The post A Mixed Bag: Challenge to Florida’s “SEXUAL PREDATOR” Driver License Branding Dismissed—But Not on the Merits appeared first on Florida Action Committee (FAC).

But before posting, please make sure what you’re posting is actually true and not hallucinated garbage. The same goes with statistics. If you are going to share statistics, make sure you cite to the source you are getting it from or it will be removed.

This week, the Eleventh Circuit summed it up perfectly in Akerlund et al. v. Atlas Air, Inc. after an attorney filed a brief full of made-up cases generated by AI, “Whatever the merits of artificial intelligence, it is no substitute for actual intelligence.” That lawyer didn’t just frustrate the court, screwed up his client’s appeal and ended up being referred to the Bar’s disciplinary committee.

Now, we’re obviously not a court, and the FAC forum isn’t a place for legal advice. But people do come here looking for information, and they trust what they read. That means we all have a responsibility to keep the information shared here accurate.

We love seeing members jump in, answer questions, and share what they’ve learned. That’s what makes this community so valuable. If you’re using AI to help write a comment, just do everyone a favor and spend a few extra minutes checking any cases, statutes, quotes, or “facts” before you post them. AI has a bad habit of sounding incredibly confident even when it’s completely wrong.

Lately, our moderators have been spending way too much time checking citations, verifying information, and deleting comments with AI-generated errors or completely made-up legal authorities. We’d much rather spend that time helping members and keeping the conversation moving. So by all means, use AI. Just don’t let AI do your thinking for you.

Thanks for helping keep FAC a place where people can count on the information being shared.

The post A Quick Reminder About Using AI appeared first on Florida Action Committee (FAC).

The U.S. Marshals Service recently announced the completion of Operation Adam’s Watch, a nationwide enforcement initiative conducted in recognition of the 20th anniversary of the Adam Walsh Act. The operation concluded on July 24, 2026 – just in time for the anniversary on July 27th, and involved 37 federal judicial districts across Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia. According to the Marshals Service, the operation resulted in the arrest of more than 330 fugitives wanted for failure to register as sex offenders.

No one disputes that people should comply with the law. Some might even say that if it recovered just one person who failed to register it was all worthwhile. But considering the enormous amount of manpower and resources dedicated to a nationwide, multi-week operation spanning 37 federal districts, 330 arrests is hardly the sweeping public safety success the headlines might suggest. More importantly, pretty much all of the enforcement actions FAC has observed in recent months have involved technical registration violations—such as failing to timely report a new vehicle registration, missing a reporting deadline, or other paperwork-related offenses—rather than allegations of new sexual crimes.

The Marshals Service press release includes the following statement from Callahan Walsh, Executive Director of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children: “As we observe Adam Walsh Remembrance Day and the 20th anniversary of the Adam Walsh Act, I’m reminded that my brother’s legacy isn’t defined by what happened to him, but by the lives that continue to be protected because people refused to let his story end in tragedy. Every time the U.S. Marshals Service apprehends an offender who threatens children, every time NCMEC helps law enforcement recover a missing child or support an investigation, we’re carrying that legacy forward. Together, we’re proving that the strongest tool we have to protect children is partnership.”

But does every failure-to-register case represent something that “threatens children”? Registration enforcement frequently involves technical compliance issues rather than conduct suggesting an imminent threat to children. Conflating paperwork violations with dangerous criminal behavior risks misleading the public about what these operations actually accomplish.

Likewise, while the statement references helping law enforcement recover missing children, the nationwide announcement for Operation Adam’s Watch does not report that the operation resulted in the recovery of any missing children. Instead, the operation was described as an effort focused on locating individuals wanted for registration violations.

For two decades, the Adam Walsh Act has been justified as a measure to improve public safety and protect children. Yet enforcement campaigns like Operation Adam’s Watch continue to emphasize registration compliance while providing little evidence that such large-scale operations reduce sexual offending or improve child safety.

It kinda makes you want to ask whether all the hype, including in Osceola, FL, where 20% of the entire registrant population was arrested was really about public safety or public relations.

The post “Operation Adam’s Watch” Likely the catalyst for the uptick in enforcement actions appeared first on Florida Action Committee (FAC).

The Pawleys Island Community Church case shows how this dynamic is expanding. Warren Perry, a registered offender on probation with conditions barring contact with minors, volunteered for years as a custodian at a church-run school after allegedly misrepresenting his work environment to his supervising agent.

Even though no child was harmed (subsequent to his original offense that landed him on the registry), family and community members are filing lawsuits left and right. What’s now the fifth such lawsuit in the case is breaking new ground: it names South Carolina’s probation agency itself, alleging the state failed to adequately supervise and enforce Perry’s conditions.

When a supervising agency can be sued for a registrant’s violation, the institutional response isn’t “supervise this one case more carefully”. It’s tightening default conditions across the entire caseload: more disclosure, tighter restrictions, less discretion for officers. That defensive posture falls hardest on registrants who are complying and pose low risk, because blanket restriction is the only strategy that protects the agency from the next lawsuit.

Most states recognize a “negligent hiring” or “negligent retention” claim: an employer can be sued if it “knew or should have known” an employee posed an unreasonable risk and harm results. The standard is broad enough that the mere fact of a registry listing is often enough to trigger a claim, regardless of the offense’s nature, age, or the person’s actual assessed risk.

Faced with that exposure, the rational move for most employers and landlords isn’t individualized risk assessment — it’s blanket avoidance. But liability exposure doesn’t filter out dangerous placements and allow safe ones through; it filters out registrants indiscriminately, because that’s the only strategy that eliminates this legal risk entirely.

A liability regime that makes employers, landlords, and probation agencies risk-averse toward registrants as a class — rather than individually assessed — doesn’t prevent harm. It actually manufactures the instability that makes reoffending more likely.

So what can be done to stop the ambulance chasers from stepping in and suing everyone who chose to give a registrant a chance?

One idea might be imposing safe-harbor provisions into law, limiting negligent-hiring liability where an employer conducted a reasonable individualized assessment and followed disclosed conditions.

Another can be government sponsored bonding programs. These are already used in some states to offset employer risk for hiring people with criminal records. It just needs to be extended to registrants in appropriate roles.

Third is statutory clarity on agency liability that distinguishes systemic supervision failure from the inherent unpredictability of human behavior. When it comes to any crime, we know that some percentage will re-offend. Does that mean we never let anyone out of prison ever?

We get that not every job placement carries equal risk. Maybe allowing this guy to volunteer as a custodian in the Church’s school wasn’t a good idea. Perhaps limiting his access to adult services or landscaping after-hours would have been better? But this isn’t about any one situation, just the general concept of making the financial exposure for hiring or housing anyone on the registry, under any circumstances, so severe that nobody would take the risk. It’s not good for anyone. The only ones getting hurt by not placing limitations on liability are the ones who are trying to do right and the good people willing to give them a chance. If you punish good-faith compliance and cautious supervision the same way you punish crimes and cover-ups, it’s a policy failure, not a safety win.

The post Third-Party Lawsuits Are Closing Doors on Registrants appeared first on Florida Action Committee (FAC).

A 2018 child-luring investigation, which began in Madison, Wisconsin, and eventually extended to Halifax, Canada, was based on a false premise.

Police were looking for a man using the Kik messaging service under the name “fus__ro_dah” (two underscores after “fus”), but they accidentally requested records for the username “fus_ro_dah” (one underscore after “fus”). This one-character difference led them not to the perpetrator but to a Canadian man named Brandon Klayme.

Despite finding no evidence of the crime on his digital devices, Canadian police arrested Klayme in 2020 on child sex abuse charges. He was convicted after a trial in 2023 and sentenced in 2024 to 18 months in prison. He served the full term.

Even after release, Klayme continued to fight his conviction. In the process of preparing his appeal, the username mistake that led to all these years of disruption was finally discovered. On Thursday, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal overturned Klayme’s conviction, writing: “Mr. Klayme is factually innocent of the offences. He should never have been charged, let alone convicted.”

SOURCE

The post A missing underscore sent innocent man to prison for 18 months appeared first on Florida Action Committee (FAC).

In preparation for our forthcoming lawsuit, we examined the patchwork of County and municipal ordinances that were adopted on top of the already severely restrictive state law, to analyze their cumulative effect on persons forced to register. In doing so, Brevard came up and just out of curiosity, we did a quick check to see what businesses self-certified themselves as parks.

Now you’d think these “places where children gather and recreation occurs” might logically include an arcade, a roller skating rink, maybe a comic book store or a martial arts studio that has an after-school program. But here are just some of the businesses that signed up:

• Stella Maris Environmental Research, which is “a 501(c)(3) not for-profit environmental research organization focused on bringing attention and solutions to current environmental issues with community action”. They are located at 155 Duval St, Melbourne Beach, 32951, which according to Zillow is a 1800 Square Feet 4 bedroom, 2 bath single family home. It’s a residence.

• The Space Coast Symphony Orchestra. Really? The symphony orchestra? I guess there’s no Beethoven for us.

• Flomazin Lifestyle Apparel. According to their website, “Flomazin is the Florida based lifestyle brand that drives your passion to manifest your dreams and live your best life.” Guess who can’t live their best life? The address that we need to stay 1000 feet away from is 918 Aventine Dr, West Melbourne, 32904, which is an apartment in “Aventine at West Melbourne”, which features one to three-bedrooms with rent ranges from $1,315/mo. to $2,280/mo. Curious to know what kind of recreation is occurring at an online clothing retailer who ironically sells a line called “the Flasher” (https://flomazin.com/products/flasher)? Can’t make this stuff up!

• How about Cape Canaveral Scientific, Inc., a grant writing company that “specializes in solving stormwater and water resource problems by leveraging and acquiring supplemental grant and legislative funding for our clients.” How many children are congregating and recreating at a grant writing business? Oh, and their address is 220 Surf Rd, Melbourne Beach, 32951, a 1834 Square Feet single family home with 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms.

Come on! Brevard is just letting anyone who decides they don’t want someone they consider undesireable coming within 1000 feet to call themselves a “park”. Apparently, in Brevard, the solution to the NIMBY problem is just say you’re a “park” and you get to create an exclusion zone that infringes on the freedom of movement of thousands of people.

A few years ago, Brevard had to pay out $157,500 to settle another FAC-initiated lawsuit. Maybe it’s time for another?

The post The “Brevard County Business Self-Certification Registry” is ridiculous! appeared first on Florida Action Committee (FAC).

Amended Pleadings due by 10/1/2026
Joinder of Parties due by 10/1/2026
Moving for class certification due by 12/21/2026
Plaintiff disclosure of expert report due by 1/25/2027
Defendant disclosure of expert report due by 3/1/2027
Discovery due by 5/24/2027
Dispositive motions due by 7/23/2027
Conduct mediation hearing by 9/29/2027
All other motions due by 11/17/2027
Pretrial statement due by 12/8/2027
Final Pretrial Conference set for 12/15/2027 at 3:00 PM in Jacksonville Courtroom 10 A before Judge Jordan Emery Pratt
Jury Trial set for trial term commencing 1/3/2028 at 9:00 AM in Jacksonville Courtroom 10 A before Judge Jordan Emery Pratt.

While the trial date may seem a bit far off, remember that this is Federal litigation, a class action and there is always the opportunity to resolve the litigation through mediation or other dispositive motions.

The post Case Schedule Set in Putnam County Lawsuit appeared first on Florida Action Committee (FAC).

The Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) has announced it is beginning a nationwide rollout of secure electronic tablets for incarcerated individuals. The tablets are expected to provide access to secure messaging, educational and vocational programming, reentry resources, faith-based content, health information, and other institutional services. The rollout will occur in phases, so availability will vary by facility. (forbes.com)

Research has consistently shown that maintaining family connections during incarceration improves outcomes after release, making this a welcome step toward better communication and rehabilitation.

If your family member is in federal prison, keep an eye out for updates from their institution. As the BOP releases more information about the rollout and available services, the Florida Action Committee will keep our members informed.

SOURCE

The post BOP to Give Federal Inmates Tablets appeared first on Florida Action Committee (FAC).

We have copied all Miami-Dade County Commissioners and are sending copies of the letter to some South Florida news outlets.

You can read the letter here: FAC Letter to M-D Homeless Trust 07292026

If anyone would like to contact the Homeless Trust directly or any of the commissioners (District1@miamidade.gov; district2@miamidade.gov; district3@miamidade.gov; district4@miamidade.gov; district5@miamidade.gov; district6@miamidade.gov; District7@miamidade.gov; District8@miamidade.gov; District9@miamidade.gov; District10@miamidade.gov; District11@miamidade.gov; District12@miamidade.gov; District13@miamidade.gov) you can do so.

The post FAC Letter to Miami-Dade Homeless Trust appeared first on Florida Action Committee (FAC).

According to reporting by WLRN and an advisory from our Legislative Committee, the City of Miami just passed (3 to 2) an amendment to its homelessness ordinance that would allow police officers to make arrests without first providing a written warning.

They are still required to offer shelter, but buried within the proposed ordinance is a provision that specifically singles out people on the sex offender registry. The ordinance states: “Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing herein shall be construed to prevent or otherwise prohibit a police officer from arresting a person in violation of this section who is ineligible for shelter placement for any reason including, but not limited to: such person being under the influence of alcohol or drugs; such person having been previously banned from the available shelter; such person’s status as a sexual offender, sexual predator, or domestic violence offender; or any other past or present conduct rendering such person ineligible for placement in a shelter.”

In other words, a person experiencing homelessness who is listed on Florida’s registry could potentially be arrested immediately, without a written warning and without being offered shelter, simply because their registry status makes them ineligible for shelter placement.

How can a government require someone to comply with lifetime restrictions that make housing impossible, then criminalize them when those same restrictions contribute to their homelessness?

The ordinance has already passed and the Mayor, Eileen Higgins (mayor@miamigov.com) (or call: 305-250-5300) has until Monday to veto it.

If you get a chance, please contact Mayor Higgins and remind her that a policy that creates homelessness and then criminalizes the homeless person for the consequences created by that legislation, is not a public safety solution. It is a revolving door. Encourage her to veto the bill until the County’s Homeless Trust has an opportunity to come up with a solution.

The post Miami makes people homeless and then arrests them for being homeless. appeared first on Florida Action Committee (FAC).