In Person Challenge FILED!
Today, the “In-Person Challenge” was filed in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
The civil rights complaint challenges the many extra registration updates that must be made in person. We are excited to have another iron in the fire!
A copy of the complaint is below:
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Will the fact that if i end up in a hospital for days i can be found in violation of this dumb rule be brought up in this? What if i need emergency travel friday evening and have no way of contacting anyone to do anything? Jail!
And each circumstance i go to report i literally get different answers so this is subject to horrible interpretation and i am at the whim of their ignorance.
Happened to us. Husband admitted, through Emergency Room, to hospital for C-diff. Was there for third day. This is the one time that being ‘on papers’ is OK.
PO came to check and when asked that question said she would have to check with Supervisor.
Answer was ‘a hospital is NOT a residence, no need to report’.
Got it in writing, just in case!
Im not on papers so dont have a po and was recently told a phone call not enough as i dont have a case po or anything. Their response was see what happens. Am concerned if i go afterward to say i was admitted for 4 days im opening myself to self incrimination. Is there any wording in the statute that would protect me?
Shortly after this statute when into effect, the FAC wrote the FLDE for guidance. The reply in writing is on this website, but basically IF you cannot get in touch with either the Sherriff nor the DMV, a call to the FLDE will suffice until you can become compliant. Just make sure that you get the date, time and name of FDLE person. The reply mentioned they are open 24/7/365 so that call along with a copy of the letter should suffice in case you are questioned.
While that’s FDLE’s reply – there is nothing in the statute that provides for Emergencies or office closures.
Here’s a link that shows the reality of what Ron Book as done in Miami-Dade county.
https://youtu.be/852ZyRIPdjI
Not sure why FAC won’t publish these comments (third attempt here) from a dues and legal challenge fund paying member (ME) regarding errors in the M25 complaint:
On the very first page, the wrong statute [940.0435] is referenced twice and once again on page 4. Would this be an excuse FDLE could use to throw out the complaint? Aside from that, although I didn’t check any other statutes, the complaint is well-written.
My only other concern, like Juan’s, is that relief items (f) and (g) concede that plaintiff does not consider the ex post facto requirements to be unconstitutional if they can be accommodated. I question why these are even in the complaint?
So glad to see the additional “in-person” requirements officially challenged in Federal Court! The State of Florida needs to be sued everytime it imposes another ineffective and arbitrary new rule that is not evidence based legislation.
Makes no sense…asking the court to declare statutes unconstitutional based on ex post facto grounds…but then…”or”, even though they’re unconstitutional, it’s OK to enforce these ex post factor statutes as long as the the info can be provided online or by telephone. Just giving the court and state suggestions to continue trampling on the constitutions. Really?
Juan what they are doing is trying to remove the heavy load off of each of your backs by removing the in person crap showing the Court how it is impossible to complied with. To weaken your enemy you must chip at them first. If they win they have a good case law to stand on!! I think it best you got someone fighting for you in that Draconian State. Unless you have the funds to hire a private attorney, get off their backs! They are fighting for your rights let them(F.A.C) fight the war just give them support by money,support and/or encouraging words.
Absolutely, not to mention that FAC has already filed a separate lawsuit challenging the entire statute on ex post facto grounds.
Not a lawyer, but this seems like a logical way to give the court many options to consider to solve the problem, which is specifically in-person reporting. Any of the options do that, and that’s the goal of the case. We already have an ex-post facto case to strike it all down. All these options, since they’re part of the complaint, must ostensibly be considered and argued-against by the defendant. We get many opportunities to win, rather than one narrow opportunity on the grounds of ex-post facto.
This is great. I don’t see how it could be in any way significantly better than it is. Kudos to FAC and supporters.
Juan, maybe you should go to law school and study litit strategy. The defense will now have an opportunity to answer the complaint, then the complaintant has an opportunity to amend the complaint if needed depending on what the defense answer is. That’s just one small part of litigation. Another part is often forcing a judge’s hand (ie, making a judge rule a certain way based on facts and law). It’s called the advocacy approach. Best wishes.