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.
In enacting Section 775.215, Florida Statutes, the Florida legislature expressed concern that its statutory residency restrictions could be viewed as punishment, and therefore that the restrictions could violate the ex post facto clauses of not only the federal but the state constitution.
See Senate Staff Analysis to Senate Bill 120, Ch.2004-55, Laws of Florida. For that reason, it deliberately exempted sex offenders whose crimes preceded enactment of the state law.
This is exactly what my attorney and whole case turns on if DOE V Miami Dade fails. ( Oral arguments to be heard in Miami on 6/6/2020).
If in fact if a Court finds 775.215 “PUNISHMENT” than State constitutional law prohibits home rule Counties such as Dade from imposing a greater punishment.
State constitutional does not prohibit the County from enhancing a “REMEDIAL” act. So whether or not 775.215 is ” declared PUNISHMENT or REMEDIAL carries a lot of wait in this State.
Pass it by your GREAT attorneys, maybe they can use it in oral arguments in Doe v Miami come June.
weight maybe?
Each individual client has to come up with thousands of dollars to pay their lawyers for each of these challenges and appeals. The counties, and states spend Millions each year defending them.
Here is the kicker, WE are also paying for the Governments defense against us because it is TAXPAYERS (US) money they use to pay for their legal defenses and challenges to our suits.
Kind of ironic and a point to ponder I’d say.
No, please do not do that. We don’t need more crappy lawsuits out there making bad precedent.
@FAC, I don’t see where anyone is advocating for a NEW lawsuit, just suggestions for an existing one.
Refusing once again to post my rebuttal to your crap comment? Name one case in the last 10 years that Val Jonas has prevailed.
Maybe one the internet identification case?
Correct me if I’m wrong. I believe it’s time for FAC to shake things, demand results, screen plaintiffs so not to embarrass us in depositions.
Rather than raise donations for this case or that limits why not just create a legal fund without limits.
Build a war chest. Solicit funding from every dues paying member. 5 bucks here 50 there $5,000 here.
Be transparent Provide annual or quarterly financial statements to members. I like to know how my investments are preforming.
Your a Not for Profit organization by including membership with voting rights we can be an association. We can become a power to be reckoned with to be feared.
Money = Power. It pays for lobbyists and attorneys which is much better than posting comments in the comment section.
I’m no schlep being secretary & treasurer of one of the largest Not for Profit taxi association in Miami I lived in court and worked very well with our legal teams.
Anyway someone once said “Bring on”….Let’s.
It’s true that we need to donate more to FAC’s legal challenges. And that our war chest is modest. I would not want to pay someone to prepare financial statements on such a modest amount. FAC legal challenge funds are spent on court transcripts, filing fees, and expert witness fees.
I am grateful for the FAC internet challenge— without it, using the internet would be burdensome to impossible for Florida residents. Has Val Jonas ever lost a case for us? If so, what was her mistake?
But you can’t just “demand results” from the courts. It doesn’t work that way. Nor can we demand an attorney to promise results. They’d lose their law license. All we can do is choose the best attorneys to make the best arguments, at their own risk. Have you seen the complaint filed in our ex post facto plus challenge, Does v Swearingen?
CMC,
Respectfully, you are offensive, but I’ll post your insulting comment so that I can respond.
Let’s see… of the cases we were involved in (in one manner or another), Val was lead attorney in our Internet Identifier case (WHICH WON IN A BIG WAY). She was also lead attorney in City of Ft. Lauderdale v. Anderson and Ford, which had the City of Ft Lauderdale Ordinance declared unconstitutional.
For her clients, she successfully appealed probation revocations of sex offenders, including a registrant from under the Causeway who broke curfew due to an emergency hospitalization and was sentenced to 25 years in prison. She successfully defended a sex offender with intellectual deficits disability in a probation revocation proceeding arising from a failure to register plea. She then persuaded the County that its residency restriction did not apply to him, allowing him to live with his wife, who also suffers cognitive deficits, and her parents. She vacated a failure to register conviction, succeeded in modifying the probation of a sex offender to permit contact visitation with his minor grandchildren. Successfully challenged the GPS-monitoring condition of his probation. Was successful in an ex post facto and substantive due process challenge to the registration statute, on behalf of a sex offender whose predicate offense – lewd and lascivious conduct with a girl two weeks short of her 16th birthday – was incurred twenty years ago. Removed from the Florida registry an out-of-state sex offender whose own state had released him from its registry… among many others.
And what about her performance thus far in the Ex Post Facto Plus case? Are you dissatisfied?!?!?
I’m not sure what you mean by “demanding results”? Is it up to us to dictate to a judge they NEED to decide one way or another? Which plaintiffs, exactly, have embarrassed us in depositions? You are clearly talking out of your ass without any insight or knowledge of what has been going on.
And there are no limits to what we are trying to raise – there are GOALS. Goals to let our members know what it will take to bring a challenge. We also have thermometers on our website so we can show, in complete transparency, how much has been raised for each challenge. Maybe you don’t appreciate that MOST of our members are unemployed or grossly underemployed because it’s so hard to find employment with this label? For many, a $5 donation means skipping a meal. How about instead of insulting smaller but very meaningful contributions you put your money where your mouth is? As an insider, I was able to confer with membership to see how much you’ve donated and you have no business insulting anybody!
We constantly invite individuals to volunteer and take a role in steering this organization. You’re talking up your qualifications but have you stepped up? No, you have not.
We moderate out many of your comments because they are usually misguided and disrespectful. We will continue to do so.
“For her clients, she successfully appealed probation revocations of sex offenders, including a registrant from under the Causeway who broke curfew due to an emergency hospitalization and was sentenced to 25 years in prison”
WOW. This right here proves how messed up registries are(not that we didn’t already know that). That is more than 90% of us got sentenced to for an “Actual” offense.
So the “non” punitive registry laws are basically a trap to send us all back to prison for life? Yes 25 years for many of people in my age bracket is probably longer than we will live as many of us have health issues. Some of which were caused by being incarcerated. ( I ended up getting hepatitis from bad food and was refused medical help )
Thanks for all you, the volunteers and legal teams do. When a time comes that I have more than $5 in my wallet, I will donate. Scared to death my county will impose registrations fees.
Oh to add to your defense F.A.C, were you not crucial in getting ClearMyCase taken down? I may be wrong but I know you brought heat on them.
That in itself is good enough for me. I was informed enough (as ex law enforcement) to not fall for their scam but many others were desperate and fell for it, losing large sums of money.
Not only that, but they sued us and we won! Got their case dismissed.
Also, not trying to come off as defensive or justify our existence, but think of how many of our members would have lost money to other scams or unscrupulous “legal services”.
This argument will be advocated very very very shortly..
I could make a comment about this situation but it probably would not be appropriate for the internet. This is murder by the Florida government…plain and simple.
When I was in the hokey, I nearly died and they would not allow me to use the phone to call my parents. I prayed and said “Lord either take me home or allow me to get word to my parents”.
A while later the Chaplin came around to check on me and I asked him to call my parents. He said he was limited in what he was allowed to say but whatever he said to my parents, an attorney called the next day and I was moved to another facility with a medical ward.
I can tell you, if I had died, they would have written it off as natural causes. I was 29 at the time. Nothing normal about a 29 year old dying.
On a side note, if you have ever eaten prison food, it is a wonder anyone survives. We ate potatoes and greens that were barely washed. I am sure during my time in, I must have eaten at least a pound of sand.
Actually the Fourth Judicial Circuit encompasses Duval, Clay, and Nassau counties. The Duval 2,500 foot rule for “predators” exempts persons who established the permanent residence prior to July 1, 2005. But, if you move to a different permanent residence, you will be in violation. So why can’t this decision be used to invalidate Jacksonville’s Sec. 685.102 (Sexual predators residency requirements) ?
Additionally, Clay County’s 2019 ill-advised ordinances (Sec. 15-44. – Residency requirements and Sec. 15-46. – Prohibited presence, loitering or prowling at certain locations; exceptions) have no date exemptions, therefore more ripe for ex post facto challenges.
Absolutely it could invalidate Jacksonville’s law. Mr. Wright established Nassau residence AFTER his offense.
Ok
Hello FAC
Would you please explain the Ex Post Facto law suite to someone who has contributed to the fund but really does not understand it.
. Who will it affect and how?
. My offence was in 1995, Conviction in 1998.
. Off probation 12/2012
Even if it will mot help me I’m glad to have helped in a financial way for others.
Hope to hear from you.
Thanks for all you do.
Certainly.
The “Ex Post Facto Plus” case (PLUS because it’s counts include; ex post facto PLUS other claims, such as due process and violations of privacy laws, among others) is Does 1-5 v. Swearingen. It was filed in the Southern District of Florida (case no. 18-24145) by Weitzner and Jonas (lead attorney Val Jonas) in 2018 and is scheduled to go to trial this November.
It will benefit all who were convicted (or plead) and then, as future “enhancements” were made to the Florida Sex Offender registry, were subsequently saddled with additional requirements and restrictions that didn’t exist when they committed their crimes, deprive them of certain constitutional rights. It has a few representative plaintiffs, but a win in that case will benefit all on the registry if declared facially unconstitutional or all who are similarly situated if declared unconstitutional as applied.
The funds we continue to raise do not go towards legal fees, but to actual costs to sustain the litigation, such as expert witness fees, depositions and transcripts, etc.
Thank you for supporting the challenge and thank you for thanking us.
The outcome of this case was good…..for now. But I am not sure if it goes far enough. Why can’t we get a Florida court to say that residency restrictions were statutorily mandated punishment a.k.a. special conditions of probation prior to 2005 and THAT is why the state has determined that they can’t impose them on anyone whose offense (correct answer) or conviction (incorrect) predates that change to the law that imposed the lifetime
Restrictions as part of registration?