It’s getting one. Oh and not to worry it will be litigated by a highly qualified Attorney, one which I believe FAC would even highly recommended. It is not a ex post facto claim rather one of State Constitutional law regarding Statutory interpretation, that is what is the distinction between criminal and remedial law. What makes one statue criminal and the other remedial.

@AJ: No worries at all. When I was actively researching case law I would come across items that fit exactly what I needed only to find out they were no good due to a more recent ruling. I applaud your diligence and others like you who divulge pertinent information so freely. Cheers!

Do you think the Senate ( Brandes etc) would just simply “amend” the current law allowing “specific registries” to be removed that fall under that 1994-1997 group in which the law was never in effect rather than deal with MAJOR PUBLICITY? Just curious?

@SC: The case laws ARE still valid.. (I wouldn’t have posted and suggested them were they not.) In fact, the 1st CCoA cited the applicable portion of Carolene, and thus Chastleton by reference, in a case in April, 2020. See: United States v. Vaello-Madero, 956 F.3d 12, 23 (1st Cir. 2020).

The cases could indeed be used to challenge the Federal SORNA, though I suspect most judges would decide it’s not “enough” of a burden (read: punishment) to overturn. I’d love to see someone take a shot at it! Me, I’ll have to win Powerball to take a stab.

Please re-read what I wrote. I did not say that no one looks at the Hit Lists. I said that my family does not look at them or want or need them in order to help improve our safety. I don’t care if nanny big government (NBG) wants to tell me that “sex offenders” live or work near me. And the simple reason for that is because my family assumes that every single person should be listed on the Hit Lists. Since we do that, we don’t need an incomplete list from NBG and we are better protected than anyone.

People definitely look at the Hit Lists. America is FULL, FULL, FULL of terrible, self-righteous, entitled dipshits who LOVE gossip and harassing other families. Full. So yep, those people love the Hit Lists. But it has jack to do with public safety or protecting children. It has to do with getting their jollies and getting themselves off.

I expect you fully agree with and understand this but, just because people look at something that does not mean it should exist or that it is smart or moral. If you put everyone’s credit report on a web site I guarantee you that site would get views that would put the Hit Lists to shame. People would be looking at that all the time. For “public safety” or some other nonsense lies that they would spew.

But is it punishment?

FL’s state residence restriction is not ex post facto.

I don’t disagree with FAC, the withdrawal a liberty interest to reside within a certain geographical area, “is among the most basic punishments that society can exact. Without question, it is an affirmative disability that has historically been regarded as punishment.” Unfortunately the 11 circuit sees it as merely remedial and hasn’t even gone as far as to apply the seven factors of Mendoza.

To date there hasn’t been judicial review or statutory interpretation of 775.215 at State level. If after judicial review it were found to be criminal not remedial, the 1000 foot restriction a punishment, it would become the uniform law of the land.

Counties are prohibited by the constitution from creating new crimes and imposing punishments, that power granted to the legislature of Florida.

https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/2020/12/23/cheerleading-cheer-sexual-misconduct-complaints-usasf/6484248002/