Florida Appeals Court Clarifies Reporting Requirements After a Move

On August 18, the 1st District Court of Appeals in Florida ordered the acquittal of a registered citizen who was charged with failing to report to the sheriff’s office within 48 hours of moving.

The appellate court pointed out that the relevant statute, 943.0435(4), provides that registered citizens are required to report to the drivers’ license office within 48 hours after a move, but requires they report to the Sheriff’s office ONLY when one “vacates a permanent, temporary, or transient residence and fails to establish or maintain another permanent, temporary, or transient residence shall, within 48 hours after vacating the permanent, temporary, or transient residence.

This is an interesting finding and, unfortunately, it took someone having to appeal a conviction to interpret what’s written in statute, but if you know anyone that was convicted for failing to report to the Sheriff’s office within 48 hours of a move, please share the following case with them.

https://edca.1dca.org/DCADocs/2015/1298/151298_DC13_08182016_021339_i.pdf

Also, for those of you contemplating a move within Florida to a new residence, know that the current statute only requires you to go to the Drivers’ License office, not the Sheriff’s office also.

 


Discover more from Florida Action Committee

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

12 thoughts on “Florida Appeals Court Clarifies Reporting Requirements After a Move

  • August 25, 2016

    Does this over ride county ordinances that require individuals to report to the sheriffs office within a certain time frame upon entering the county: Such as Seminole Co.Ordinance : That requires Registrants to report in person if they are in the county more than 48 hrs and to carry a Seminole county SO Id issued at the SPOT

    Reply
  • August 24, 2016

    That wasn’t very clear – my point being that they do not really know the law and they just arbitrarily enforce things on people that are incorrect! in this case a man was convicted and I wonder if the 1st judge even read the dang statute???

    Reply

Comment Policy

  • PLEASE READ: Comments not adhering to this policy will be removed.
  • Be patient. All comments are moderated before they are published. This takes time.
  • Stay on topic. Comments and links should be relevant to this post.
  • *NEW* CLICK HERE if you have an off-topic comment or link.
  • Be respectful. Do not attack, abuse, or threaten. This includes cussing/yelling (ALL CAPS).
  • Cite. If requested, cite any bold or novel claims of fact or statistics, or your comment may be moderated.
  • *NEW* Be brief. If you have a comment of over 2,000 characters, please e-mail it to us for consideration as a member submission.
  • Reminder: Opinions and statements in comments are neither endorsed nor verified by FAC.
  • Moderation does not equal censorship. See this post for more information

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *