Florida can keep ‘sexual predator’ marking on driver’s licenses, appeals court rules
The case arose after a sexual predator was sent back to prison after his probation officer found a smiley-face sticker covering the label on his license.
Florida can continue branding convicted sexual predators on their driver’s licenses.
In a divided ruling, the 5th District Court of Appeal has upheld the constitutionality of requiring state-issued driver’s licenses and ID cards to have “SEXUAL PREDATOR” stamped on them if the holder has been convicted of such a crime.
The ruling reverses an earlier panel’s action striking down the law as unconstitutional compelled speech.
In a 31-page opinion issued Friday, Judge Jordan Pratt wrote that the designation represents the state’s message, not the individual’s, and does not force offenders to “publicly display or disseminate the message” beyond ordinary license checks .“Any reasonable observer will understand that it’s the State’s message that Crist is a sexual predator, just as it’s the State’s message that he is licensed to drive in Florida and has a certain ‘date of birth, height, weight, or eye color,’” Pratt wrote.“And by marking Crist’s license … rather than his front yard, office entrance, business advertisements, personal vehicle, or custom website, the State has not compelled Crist to publicly display or disseminate its message.”
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The judge is wrong.
Forcing one to show their DL/ID is forcing (or compelling) one to speak. It is used to prove who they are according to a state standard (their message) at any given moment the person is looking for something in return, e.g., to purchase booze/cigs/porn, enter a facility, etc. The personal data within the DL/ID is not the state’s but the person’s to which they must provide to the state to get a state sponsored and provided message DL/ID which must be used as mentioned above, but is still the person’s data, not the state’s. People don’t surrender their personal data to the state for them to use as they see fit.
Every Floridian is compelled to speak to show they meet the FLA state standard of proving who they are when commencing a transaction or having an interaction. The FLA DL/ID is the less restrictive most convenient way of doing that.
However, the stamping of the DL/ID with the words in question is not the least restrictive way of sharing the message as the Judge believes. Rather the possible showing of the state statute which the person qualifies under is the more appropriate least restrictive way (as FLA does as I understand for those who are not SVPs but rather SOs) and still qualify for the message they want the person to share. That is what courts have opined on and come to the conclusion of. FLA Court of Appeals is wrong.
But it is compelled speech because of the fact that sex offenders are statutorily required to carry identification. And that identification carries that message. So they are, indeed, compelled to “speak”. – It is compelled speech. For it is required by the state. (And there is no choice to opt out, for instance, to simply not drive.)
In Florida (unlike in some other states), there is no state law that requires persons designated SPs or SOs to carry their DL or state ID card on their persons, only the requirement that they obtain such a card, keep it current, and have their DL in their possession when operating a motor vehicle (part of the Florida Uniform Traffic Code under F.S. chapter 316, not part of the sex offender or sexual predator registration statutes).
A careful reading of F.S. 775.21 and F.S. 943.0345 will show that registrants are only required to “secure” and “update” such cards, not to bear them on their persons.
I would then argue the state requires you to show your ID to buy tobacco,alcohol and lottery tickets along with numerous other times you must show it . So the state is forcing you to display and disseminate this information
To buy paint or air duster, the bank, dmv, court house for anything you need put in your name, etc the list is lengthy. I truly cannot understand why they need to know all that. They might as well force us to to wear the statute or pedatory marking on a shirt. I show my ID to more people in the public than I have ever shown it to law enforcement.
That is total BS, I have been asked for ID to buy ciggarettes, cash a check, at a doctors office, and so on. How the hell does this protect the cashier, nurse, doctor, and how does it not make me a “mark” as I have to show this ID in so many places beyond a ordinary license checks.
So in fact it does force us to publicly display or disseminate the message!!!
And I don’t give a rats @$$ what they think, I have gone through 30+ years of this crap, and NEVER had another issue, and all because I had a crap lawyer that said, after 9months in jail, “Take a plea” Its stacked against you, your Spanish, judge is white, prosecutor is white, and your step granddaughter is white. I pled in 1997 and since then they have changed stuff so many times and we have no say against it, so why can’t we make changes when we feel like it?
I am so done with this, US Marine Vet, and only thing people see if that on my ID and anything else I have done in my life is junk!!
So, If I understand this correctly. The 5th DCA sided with Crist and made unconstitutional the “Sexual Predator” verbiage on the license. Then, the same 5th DCA sided against Crist on a rehearing in front of a different group of Judges and found it now constitutional? So the court overruled themselves?
Unbelievable.
You are somewhat correct. A 3 judge panel sided with Crist, then they heard it en banc (the entire District Court) and the majority went the other way.
Two thoughts. Can Crist take this to a federal court and what are the chances the FLSC punts on it
Crist’s case is a criminal case. He can take it to the federal court, but likely the next step is the Florida Supreme Court. Another thing is; Crist is incarcerated, so he’s not that impacted right now.
This is them just kicking the can down the road. They will lose in the future. They know exactly what they are doing. They have done the same thing with the ex post facto case.
They absolutely do place it in his front yard. Its digitally posted on his home.