In Pasco sex offender ordinance fight, lawyer wants deputies to stay away from clients
The legal battle over Pasco County’s strict new sex offender ordinance has taken a strange turn:
Two Pasco sheriff’s deputies visited a sex offender at his home on March 15, according to court records, and tried to dissuade him from joining the lawsuit challenging the 2015 ordinance that governs where offenders can live in the county.
The lawyer trying to strike down the ordinance then filed for a protective order on March 21 to keep the Pasco County Sheriff’s Office away from that client.
Joining the lawyer in that motion is the attorney hired by Pasco County to defend its ordinance.
That means Pasco’s lawyer agrees Pasco’s deputies should stay away from the sex offenders named in the lawsuit.
“Who in the Sheriff’s Office had the bright idea to tell those two guys to go do this?” said Patrick Leduc, the lawyer challenging the ordinance on behalf of his sex offender clients.
The ordinance prevents newly registered sex offenders whose victims were under the age of 16 from living within 2,500 feet of a school, playground, childcare facility, public park or library. It also prohibits offenders from lingering within 300 feet of “child safety zones” — the roughly 4,400 school buses in the county, as well as arcades, public beaches and other places where children regularly gather.
The residency rule goes far beyond the state’s 1,000-foot radius, essentially making 48 percent of Pasco County off-limits to sex offenders. Hillsborough County is now considering a similar expansion.
Leduc sued the county in October on behalf of Earl Reyes Villagomeza, a sex offender who pled guilty in 2015 under the new ordinance. Leduc asserts that Pasco’s ordinance is unconstitutionally broad and vague and is preempted by state law. On March 14, Leduc filed a court document saying he intended to add two more plaintiffs to the suit.
The next day, two deputies in the Pasco County Sheriff’s Office Sex Offender Unit showed up at the home of one of the new plaintiffs, Anthony Locacio, 75. He was released from prison in 2010 after serving 12 years for attempted sexual battery of a child under 12 and lewd and lascivious indecent assault of a child under 16.
“They tried to explain to him that the ordinance didn’t apply to him, and that the lawsuit was frivolous and that he didn’t need to be a part of it,” Leduc said. “It’s completely inappropriate.”
Leduc wrote in his motion the deputies’ actions amount to prior restraint, when the government tries limit speech before it can take place.
Sheriff’s spokesman Kevin Doll confirmed the deputies visiting Locacio, but he would not say what they did so, citing the pending litigation. Pasco Sheriff Chris Nocco supports the ordinance.
In his motion, Leduc said the visit by deputies caused Locacio “severe emotional distress.” The attorney wrote Locacio tried to leave the lawsuit and “is presently in great fear of retaliation should he continue in the lawsuit going forward.”
Luke Lirot, a private attorney hired by the county to defend the ordinance from Leduc’s lawsuit, said the deputies visited Locacio’s house to inform him he wasn’t subject to the limitations outlined in the ordinance.
“Rather than have these individuals misconstrue limitations on their conduct that were simply not applicable, the Detectives responsible for their compliance issues made contact with these proposed new Plaintiffs to try and clear up any confusion,” Lirot wrote in an email to the Tampa Bay Times.
Leduc acknowledged Locacio isn’t currently covered by the residency portion of the ordinance. But, Leduc said, Locacio, along with every other sex offender in the county, is subject to the restrictions in place by the child safety zone portion of the ordinance.
Though they are on opposite sides of this issue in court, both Leduc and Lirot said they drafted a joint order that will instruct the Sheriff’s Office to “cease any unofficial contact with any named plaintiffs to this lawsuit without first apprising both counsels for the plaintiff and the defense, and allowing counsel for the plaintiff to be present.”
Leduc said he expects Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Judge Linda Babb will sign that order.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
they can all go to @@LL as far as im concerned and their idiotic sex offender rules. Why dont they try to protect some animals like dogs or whatever?
I got into a “discussion” with a Seminole County compliance officer once about the “grandfathered” in part of SC ordinance. The subject was that essentially no one could ever really be grandfathered in. The SC ordinance says if you lived in the residence for a certain amount of time before conviction you could stay there. But state law does not recognize that so if you are incarcerated or on probation you must move if the residence is not in compliance – therefore by the time you are off paper you do not qualify for that clause. The subject came up because it would have been great to have my son stay in the home he was raised in but it is about 100 feet inside the living restriction for SC for a neighborhood park.
The other part of these ordinances that have always been hard for me to grasp is the 16 yr old victim thing. What about CP convictions? My sons contraband was all post-pubescent females (acknowledged by a judge) so where is the judgement concerning age? There is none …
I am glad that these lawyers see the bullying tactics that took place in this situation and have spoken out about it (even if the sheriff denies the purpose)
This story brings to mind jokes about guys with baseball bats that can be sent over to ‘persuade’ you. I’m not laughing.
Why is it that the Pasco Sheriff office, the Pasco BOCC and media outlets keep perpetuating the fallacy that “offenders are grandfathered in” and “the ordinance effects ‘newly registered’ offenses?”
This is NOT the case. ONLY THE ADDRESS IS GRANDFATHERED IN. (I don’t even agree with this term because if a current offender moves from an approved approved 1,000ft address… They must abide by the 2,500ft rule wherever they move)
This ordinance effects ALL registered citizens.
You are exactly right, JR.
The exemption states, “Lives in a residence that he or she established and registered pursuant to F.S. § 775.21, 943.0435 or 944.607, prior to the effective date of this division; ”
You will not be grandfathered into any residence other the residence that you were in prior to the effective date. If you move to another residence, say; next door, you are not grandfathered in to that new residence.
The reason that they are saying these things is probably the same reason that they say, “Sex Offenders have a high rate of recidivism” or that these restrictions improve public safety, when it’s common knowledge that these statements are untrue.
Correct. I suppose my statement was more rhetorical or to spur thought on these misrepresentations.
I have I list I am refining of what I believe to be legally contradictory, redundant, and/or counter intuitive such as:
One lives in 1,000ft rule acceptable residence. They move and must now conform to 2,500ft rule. They find a residence conforming to the new ordinance.
What happens if they want to move BACK to the previous 1,000ft residence. Are they now more of a threat to the community? I know the ordinance will hold them to the 2,500ft…but legally what happened to the previously acceptable residence when no other new evidence is presented or no new offense has occurred?
I feel as though this is a legal question (NOT an emotional one) but I am naive to what legal questions have been answered in court?
Since the vast majority of the ordinances passed in Florida have been proven ineffective and actually counter productive, the laws themselves are harassment. Even worse, many cause increased danger to society in general due to keeping former offenders from forming emotional ties to any kind of support system and becoming an active, contributing part of said society.
Isn’t this harassment ??