GREAT DECISION: Nassau County (FL) SORR violated Ex Post Facto provisions.
An excellent decision came out of Florida’s Fourth Judicial Circuit (Nassau County) Friday afternoon finding their Sex Offender Residency Restriction (SORR) Unconstitutional as applied to the Defendant (who was charged with violating the County SORR) whose offense date was before the enactment of the SORR.
You can read the decision here: State v Wright – Nassau County SORR Case
The tides are changing!
Discover more from Florida Action Committee
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Thank the lawyers who fought this and got the win. Way to go Florida!!!!!!
The paradigm is changing because we are speaking up!
Please, everyone, take every opportunity to write emails and letters. Make phone calls. Every single time you see an opportunity to broach the subject or reply to it, please do so.
We must continue to insinuate these injustices into the national conversation – one person, one email, one conversation at a time!
The people who matter (judges and legislators) hear us eventually.
We must not lose this momentum! We must double down NOW!
That was a beautiful lunch time read.
The Jacksonville defense attorney appears to have done a thorough and persuasive job here. Somebody really did their homework on sex offenders.
I recall that we were struggling to add a northeast Florida attorney to FAC’s referral list. Any chance FAC legal could reach out to him to see whether it would be appropriate to include him?
Are you at liberty to share the name of this attorney? I assume it is one of the names listed at the end.
Looking at those three names and then googling them, I inferred that the second of the three was the defense attorney in this case.
I know we’re often mad at Rick Scott, but he appointed this sensible judge. Credit where credit is due.
@Jacob
You know that Judges in Florida are voted in yes?
Interesting read. For some reason the Judge had to start by saying “This Court does not find that the County’s legislative intent was punitive” but then goes on to find everything about it punitive.
Their intent, as shown by the ruling, is to make all of the county out of bounds for people on the registry evidenced by the 99.1% of the county that is within 2500′ of a bus stop. He goes on to clarify they can be around the bus stop during the day when the kids are there but they can sleep within 2500′, which usually happens at night, and the kids are gone. In other words, this law has no effect other than forcing registrants to leave the county.
This case does nothing for those people whose crime was committed after the date of the archaic rule. What needs to happen now is something who has been in the same boat whose crime was after that date in this county should take them to court because the Judge himself says it is punitive on just about every level and that by itself, Ex Post Facto notwithstanding, it unconstitutional.
Alan
I thought the same thing and even though it was not funny, for some reason I laughed out loud. I guess I was laughing at the contradiction of the statement.