Ft. Lauderdale, Florida Sex Offender Residency Restriction Declared Unconstitutional
The Ft Lauderdale Sex Offender Residency Restriction was declared unconstitutional. Wait… what?!?! A Florida SORR was declared unconstitutional?
YES! The municipal ordinance in the City of Ft. Lauderdale that prohibited registered sex offenders from living within 1400 feet of schools, parks, playgrounds, school bus stops, etc. was found to violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution! Hold on… what? Are you serious?
YES! We’ve known for a while (since February 16th) but have been waiting to make the official announcement until we had an order back from the Judge. We just wanted to make 1000% sure. But we’re serious and excited! Many registrants in Fort Lauderdale, FIFTY PERCENT OF WHICH ARE HOMELESS because there’s virtually nowhere for them to live, are no longer subject to the City’s draconian and ineffective residency restrictions! But how did this happen?
Two brave registrants who were going to be kicked out of their Ft. Lauderdale homes stood up and said NO! After being charged with violating the City’s ordinance, they fought for their right to remain in their homes and fought the charge. Represented by Patrick Trese and Valerie Jonas (who represents us in our Internet Identifier case and who we retained for our Ex Post Facto challenge) they fought the charge and the Judge dismissed the violation, finding the ordinance unconstitutional on its face. So, what does this mean?
This means that the ordinance cannot be applied retroactively. More specifically, it doesn’t apply to people whose offenses pre-date the ordinance (2007). Anyone who offended after the ordinance was passed is still subject to the ordinance. So, can registrants with offenses before 2007 live anywhere in Ft. Lauderdale?
Not exactly… there’s one more caveat… Florida has a 1,000-foot State Statute, which was passed in 2004. So, to simplify; if your offense was after the Ft. Lauderdale ordinance was passed, you are subject to a 1,400 foot restriction in Ft Lauderdale. If your offense was before the Ft. Lauderdale ordinance, but after the State ordinance, you are subject to a 1,000 foot restriction. And, if your offense pre-dates the Florida State SORR (October 1, 2004), you are not subject to any residency restriction in Ft. Lauderdale.
Many of you may be asking, “so what about me? I don’t live in Ft. Lauderdale”. Well, although this is not a decision binding on the entire state, this decision is a first crack in the wall (more like a blow from a sledgehammer). Recall, we have a State statute, within the State we have multiple County ordinances and within each County there are multiple City ordinances. Although this is a win for the defendants at only the City level (albeit in one of the 10 most populous cities in Florida), it’s powerfully persuasive. We also all share the same State and Federal constitution. Also, recall we have an upcoming trial in a County challenge in Federal Court!
The bottom line is; this is a huge win for the two defendants, who stood up and risked criminal penalty and the attorneys who fought for them. In turn, it’s a huge win for all of us!
OrderGrantingDef’sMotiontoDismiss
Discover more from Florida Action Committee
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Does anyone know of any pending litigation regarding the Ex Post Facto residency restrictions in Miami-Dade County?
Yes, Does v. Miami-Dade in the Southern District of Florida.
It’s been discussed in this forum since the case was launched in 2014.
Where can I find the information or to get updates?
I have a question for my “monthly police check”. IF Ft Laud. went and dropped the residency restrictions, what about the towns that have annexed away from; BUT Ft Laud REFUSES to give up the mailing address? (Ex. I live in town “A” which annexed from Ft Laud in 2003. Ft Laud keeps my house as a Ft Laud address, but half of my mail comes addressed to town “A”???)
My friendly police check was actually disappointed that I knew the law, and that the law had changed.
My “accusement” was 4-19-94. Plea was 2-22-95.
The prosecution brought me back in almost 2 years later (12-16-96) and stated that “I was now a sex Pred”. The law said at time of my plea “UPON SENTENCING I was to be informed that I would be labeled a Predator”. Nothing was said to me, or my “public Pretender” at the time of the plea.
They just heaped that on me.
I went to get the transcripts (court transcripts 12-16-96) and surprisingly “they cant be found”. My court paper labeling me is there and so is the stenographers tape… BUT… there is a “note” scribbled on the side of the tape stating that only this person can reproduce the transcripts (and that person is now dead!!??)
Who else is calling “BS” on this one too??
This is great!!! We need to keep up the good energy and continue these discussions. Let’s not let state and local governments treat us this way anymore. The registry is sooo wrong, you do the crime( if it was even a crime) you do the time,end of story. Let’s stop being so scared to speak up, we are just human, not even Saints don’t make mistakes. FYI- France just made the legal age of consent 15.
To FAC:
Is there a law that prohibits someone from posting your FDLE Flyer on a neighborhood site (Nextdoor.com)
Am I going to go thru the same crap I went thru 20 years ago (rocks, car windows smashed, house shot at)
Let me know if there is any legal action I can take against this woman
anyone can sue anyone for anything. You’ll likely lose this one, unfortunately.
There is a misdemeanor harassment charge for misusing information from the registry, but you’d probably need to contact a lawyer or the DA to determine if it’s applicable. Even if applicable I seriously doubt the state would pursue charges.
WOAH>>> !!! ??? I reported the people that were posting the 3 websites. Within 10 minutes, Nextdoor.com had the posts taken down. And the third is just the FDLE website with no references to myself.
BIG thanks to Nextdoor.com for taking down a potentially dangerous situation. (and for respecting my rights !!)
This is great news!
I am curious (given the other thread on this site) why Sean was not banned from NextDoor? I am glad but it is interesting?
Karen, I dont know. I put up a post about “unlicensed Contractors” operating without a license, not pulling permits, ect.
Then I was reported for “unneighborly acts that were rude”.
Then the 3 FDLE references pop up.
Then Nextdoor took down 2 of the 3 websites.
Then I was banned for being a sex offender.
I would like Nextdoor to send me the private Messages that were sent to me. (I would have a few lawsuits going for harassment and hate crimes, threatening, ect) But Nextdoor refuses to give me that info.
” The ordinance is unconstitutional on its face”.
On Its Face: Usually it is used to describe a statute or proposed statute where the words themselves very clearly do not pass constitutional muster.
A Broward Court, I suppose, found that SORR sanction as applied serves the goals of punishment and is unconstitutional “On its Face”.
Looking to Section 11 paragraph 9 of the State constitution: this section shall be strictly construed to maintain such supremacy of this Constitution and of the Legislature in the enactment of general laws “(Punishments for Crimes)” pursuant to this Constitution.
So, if a court has found residency restrictions enacted by Broward County unconstitutional “punishment on its “Face”, and the State constitution under Section 11 Prohibits home rule Counties such as Dade and Broward from enacting special laws pertaining to: “Punishment of a crime” than this is much more than just an ex post facto claim, its about general law and needs to be followed through.
Section 11 paragraph 9 of our Great States Constitution further states: “this section shall be strictly construed to maintain such supremacy of this Constitution and of the Legislature in the enactment of general laws pursuant to this Constitution.”
In other words if Sex Offender Residency Restrictions constitute a punishment not merely a remedial civil sanction and according to the State Constitution only the State legislature can enact punishments for crimes, than State s775.215 should be the supreme law governing sex offender residency restrictions in this State.
This argument is not whether a State sanction preempts a Counties non punitive remedial Civil sanction but rather the States exclusive power to enact PUNISHMENTS for a crime.
A lawyer I’m not.
Happy Easter/Passover to all.
Don’t think the city of Fort Lauderdale will appeal. To do so and then the Appellate Court 4th DCA to rule against them may establish a precedent that will invalidate almost every ordinance through Broward county.. I think the city may have given this some strategic thought of the possible consequences of a loss
I think the appeal would go to the circuit court.
So my question is, now that court after court is establishing that the SOR is a punitive measure, doesn’t that open the door to across the board 8th Amendment challenges as well as limited ex post facto challenges?