News Sharing and General Commentary
Members, advocates, and all followers of Florida Action Committee’s news website:
Please use this post to bring our attention to fresh news or media content. You may also use the comment area on this post to leave comments on any topic relevant to FAC’s journalistic mission.
Question: Why does this post exist?
Answer: FAC comment policy for all other posts is that comments must be relevant to the post topic and cannot contain links. For this post and only this post, these policies are suspended. You may comment on any topic and may share links. Comments must still be news worthy or informative, as well as related to the registry in some way.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Another registry joins the list https://www.news4jax.com/news/local/2023/12/27/special-persons-registry-aims-to-improve-relations-between-police-and-people-with-special-needs-mental-illness/
Yes, another registry. But this one is optional and without any penalties. Ours is court ordered with criminal penalties for failing to comply. Huge differences.
The irony is, many on the registry have special needs along with the plethora of mental health issues the registry CREATES for those forced to register.
I agree.
-Whatever happened to doe v. SWEARINGEN. A group of Florida registrants with cases dated prior to Oct 1st, 1997 arguing about the violation of Expo facto clause which was allowed by the 11th District Court to be sent back to lower court to be reconsidered as a continued violation of doctrine ?
Hopefully that case was not married to any other case being argued in Fl that may have a registrant defendant with a case dated after 1997 ?
The case has been stayed until Judge Hinkle rules in the case from the Northern district of Florida. The one in the Southern District of Florida will continue after that ruling.
Florida News our motion survived a motion to dismiss the complaint https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/50847156/Kirkpatrick_v_Kerner
However the injunction was denied.
What is Kirkpatrick v. Kerner about? It appears to be on the Middle District of Florida, whereas we have a case for PFRa in the Northern and Southern Districts as well. Thanks.
It’s about being predator marked on a drivers license. From what I first read in the PDF file. Defendant Dave Kerner is the Executive Director of the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. This is the same district as me so I want to see what is in the courts already. The one to watch in the one in the Southern District of Ex Post Facto but I fear it will get shot down as it is only just before the state law being on 9/03/1997 not the Federal Law of 9/13/1994 and the Amendment of 5/17/96. Did he have Civil Due Process under this act by the state of Georgia? I’m not an Attorney but I’ve been in this game since the beginning in New Jersey. I’m a John Doe Retroactive challenger of the Original Megans Law. We challenged it in Federal court already under E.B. v Verniero ( Every Body Retroactive ) the Ex Post Facto Double Jeopardy Clause an what was considered non punitive in Federal court. This Amendment took out the civil classification level of not for public notification but didn’t remove anything to justify it’s removal making it all public. I earned “Not for Public” classification in court under the due process clause but FDLE refused to honor it. How good would it be if we prove that potentially 45% 35,000 here in Florida are being punished with public humiliation? of the 1172 retroactive 528 were classified not for public. that 45% who were not going on the public registry.
Thank you for the update. Can you fill me in on what this case was about? I don’t recognize the plaintiff and defendant’s names.
Sorry, yeah I didn’t list the info of the case, this is in regards to the drivers license branding. I don’t have a pacer account but it seems we tried to get injunction which would be hard to get and it was denied, but it looks like the case has merits and will proceeded again I’m not a lawyer so I’m just trying to make sense of it but this is my best guess.
https://floridaactioncommittee.org/court-challenge-in-florida-concerning-branding-driver-license-with-sexual-predator/
In Michigan news the Michigan Supreme Court will hear next month if a non sexual crime warrants placement on the registry
https://www.courts.michigan.gov/news-releases/2023/december/supreme-court-schedules-january-oral-arguments/
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Vs.
CORA LADANE LYMON, a/k/a COREY LYMON
“The Supreme Court denied the defendant’s application, but granted the prosecution’s cross-application to address whether requiring a defendant to register as a sex offender under the Sex Offenders Registration Act (SORA), MCL 28.721 et seq., as amended by 2020 PA 295, effective March 24, 2021 (the 2021 SORA), for a non-sexual crime, such as unlawful imprisonment of a minor, constitutes cruel or unusual punishment under Const 1963, art 1, § 16 or cruel and unusual punishment under US Const, Am VIII.”
Senate Bill 1534 becomes law on Jan 1, 2024. The law changes Florida statutes so that only a judge can set, reduce or alter a defendant’s bail.
It also amends state law so that a person cannot be released before a first appearance hearing if they were, at the time of arrest, designated as a sexual offender or sexual predator in this state or any other state.
Sometimes, first appearance hearings can take days or weeks. And, even then, this law might be more likely to discourage a judge from even allowing bail. This law applies if one is arrested for ANY reason.
I am surprised that we did not oppose this terrible bill. Re-arrests of former sex offenders tend to be for technicalities, not re-offending. What a cruel waste of tax dollars.
Good catch by RayO, and a warning.
Related bills SB 1534 Pretrial Release and Detention and HB 1627 Pretrial Release and Detention keep registered citizens from getting out on bail until their first appearance and then “a judge must determine the appropriate bail, if any, based on an individualized consideration of the criteria in s. 903.046(2).”
We tracked these bills, but did not actively oppose them because 903.046(2) already kept registered citizens from getting out on bail before first appearance. All these bills did was add more non-sex crimes to prevent people from bailing out before first appearance.
The above is good to know, and I am thankful as always to our Legislative Committee and its volunteers.
If anyone lives in the Tampa- St. Pete area the zoning issue is on the calendar for tomorrow item number 66 https://tampagov.hylandcloud.com/221agendaonline/Meetings/ViewMeeting?id=116&doctype=1
Looks like this is open to the public.
I imagine they’re trying to find a backdoor option to evict as many residents as they can thru some zoning technically.
Dang it they pushed it back till January 25th