Lifetime Registration for Florida Sex Offenders Isn’t ‘Custody’

The Eleventh Circuit has ruled that the requirement for lifetime registration is not “custody” for purposes of habeas corpus.

The petitioner claimed that requiring registration and reporting after completing probation for a lewd or lascivious charge is illegal custody.

 

SOURCE (Behind a paywall)

Full order: Eleventh Circuit Ruling – No. 21-12540 – D.C. Docket No. 217-cv-00396-JLB-NPM


Discover more from Florida Action Committee

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

25 thoughts on “Lifetime Registration for Florida Sex Offenders Isn’t ‘Custody’

  • February 26, 2023

    Dear FAC, I meet the “in custody” requirements stated in this recent 11th Circuit decision because I am on lifetime probation. I will volunteer to bring a new challenge under this decision if needed. You can contact me at the email address I will provide with this comment to you. This is a great opportunity to force the federal courts to address the issues that the 11th Circuit pointed out regarding lifetime registration and residency restrictions.

    Reply
  • February 17, 2023

    Seem like their withholding judgment on the living restrictions issues so maybe another well thought out lawsuit will prevail.
    If the majority of Ybor Harbor (Tampa) is off limits to live in same situation near Miami and the whole can’t drive down certain roads in Brevard crapshow plus all the other state law county municipal codes and city ordinance that restrict our living arrangements in any given area. Surely that shows custody. As I see living restrictions as confinement with is a form of custody.
    Seems that would be a better plan of attack. Also I’m kinda of shocked his case made it that far with him being his own lawyer. At least they withheld judgment in that area so it wouldn’t create bad case law.

    Reply
  • February 17, 2023

    This ruling is contrasted to Piasecki v. Court of Common Pleas (3rd Cir. 2019) were 3rd cir court of appeal ruled registration is considered custody for Habeas corpus purpose. Seem like us Supreme Court has to step in now to resolve the conflict.

    Reply
  • February 14, 2023

    The judges in the 11th Circuit must be smoking dope. They seem to be clueless on the definition of custody. How can citizens find justice when judges are so blind to the facts?

    Reply
    • February 15, 2023

      Capt., the 11th Cir has a history of ignoring facts that benefit me in my CP case. Ive pointed out their factual errors and the factual errors of the district court many times. Their response is typivally something to the effect of “too little, too late” or “we don’t deal with ‘wait, there’s more'” types of cases. They know it’s unlikely SCOTUS will take cases for review. But SCOTUS has smacked the 11th Cir around in the past (read Magwood v. Patterson). Bottom line, the 11th Cir looks for any plausible reason to deny relief, especially to SOs.

      Reply

Comment Policy

  • PLEASE READ: Comments not adhering to this policy will be removed.
  • Be patient. All comments are moderated before they are published. This takes time.
  • Stay on topic. Comments and links should be relevant to this post.
  • *NEW* CLICK HERE if you have an off-topic comment or link.
  • Be respectful. Do not attack, abuse, or threaten. This includes cussing/yelling (ALL CAPS).
  • Cite. If requested, cite any bold or novel claims of fact or statistics, or your comment may be moderated.
  • *NEW* Be brief. If you have a comment of over 2,000 characters, please e-mail it to us for consideration as a member submission.
  • Reminder: Opinions and statements in comments are neither endorsed nor verified by FAC.
  • Moderation does not equal censorship. See this post for more information

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *