NOTIFICATION OF REGISTRANT RESTRICTION CHANGES
Effective July 1, 2026, and pending the Governor signing CS/HB45/SB212 into law, the following changes will be made in Florida’s law.
The current state mandated 1,000 ft residency restrictions from schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, and parks continue to apply.
Effective July 1, 2026:
Swimming Pool residency ban: Registrants with specified offenses involving those less than 16 years old which offense occurred on or after July 1, 2026 – may not live within 1,000 ft of public swimming pools. Registrants whose offense was between Oct 1, 2004 (May 26, 2010 out of state offense) and before July 1, 2026 may stay in their residences BUT when they change their permanent residence they must comply with the 1,000 ft public swimming pool restriction. This residency ban is retroactive when a person moves from their permanent residence.
Registrants whose crimes occur on or after July 1, 2026 and who are on conditional release, probation or community control with specified offenses involving those less than 18 years old may not live within 1,000 ft of a public swimming pool, park, playground, school or childcare facility beginning July 1, 2026. The Florida Dept. of Corrections will provide further guidance which we will share as soon as it is available.
The specific language in the bill states, “”Public swimming pool” means a structure which is located either indoors or outdoors and used for recreational bathing or swimming by humans. The term includes a conventional pool, spa-type pool, wading pool, special purpose pool, spray pool, splash pad, or other water recreation attraction, to which admission may be gained with or without payment of a fee, regardless of whether entry to the swimming pool is limited by a gate or other method of controlling access. The term includes swimming pools operated by or serving subdivisions, apartments, condominiums, mobile home parks, or townhouses, or any pool operated by a governmental entity which is held open to the public. The term does not include a swimming pool at a private single-family residence, hotel, motel, or recreational vehicle park or a swimming pool where the operator prohibits the use of such pool by persons younger than 18 years of age.”
Loitering and Prowling: Changes the loitering and prowling prohibition from within 300 feet to within 500 feet of a place where children congregate. Warrantless arrests are now authorized.
This bill changes knowingly approaching with intent to communicate with sexual intent to any contact/communication/approach with a person younger than 18 years old in a park, playground or a recreational swimming pool. Family members are excluded. Only two types of recreational swimming pools are excluded: private single-family residences and facilities where persons younger than 18 are prohibited. This change is retroactive.
It remains legal to go to a park, playground, and swimming pool but registrants cannot communicate with minors, except their own children, in these locations. Contacting, communicating, approaching one’s family and household members younger than 18 years old are excluded.
Registrants whose crime occurred on or after July 1, 2026 and who are on conditional release, probation or community control with specified offenses involving those less than 18 years old – may not visit a public swimming pool without prior approval from supervising officer and may not work at a public swimming pool.
Written notification of Conviction: Persons with specified offenses may not be on the premises or property of a child care facility or school when it is in operation. Parents, grandparents and legal guardians may go to a child care facility or school with written notification of sexual offense conviction to the school board, principal, or owner and notification of when they intend to be present at the school/child care facility.
Retroactive: This notification change applies to all specified offenders – it does not matter when the offense occurred.
Excluded from notification: Parents, grandparents and legal guardians who are dropping off or picking up his/her child or grandchild at the childcare facility or school.
Registrants may be on the premises solely to attend a religious service.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I moved out of state but still own a timeshare on the beach in Pinellas for 1 week a year. Can I still go to it?
As far as I can tell, yes. Just dont talk to any minors at the pool area. FAC correct me please if I am wrong.
Yes, don’t speak to any minors. It’s good practice not to speak to any minors ANYWHERE.
i dont understand say if someones conviction date is 2000 or whatever this bill does not affect them and then there is a difference for out of state vs i state conviction maybe 5 times i year i may go to a water park so if a cinviction was prior to a certain date that is now prohibited or not prohibited?
the only hope anyone in Florida has is hope, pray and beg the Great Janice Does a SCOTUS Challenge if this bill is signed into law which im sure it will be!
Hey kid! Don’t step in that broken glass there by the rattlesnake!
Oh well. Sucks to be them. I won’t warn anyone of such things.
This may be a dumb question, but how does any of this apply to someone who’s conviction was in 1998 (off probation in 2002)?
No Residency restrictions just the Contact, communication, etc with minor under 18 in any park, pool, playground, school, preschool, daycare. That is my layman’s reading.
Just a thought and a serious one at that. The registry was initiated to allow for registries of certain crimes. The residency restrictions were a separate issue from the registry.
According to the Constitution RIGHTS Cannot be removed from a person without adjudication. This means that rights cannot be stripped retroactively by legislation. Florida seems to utilize the registry to effectively take away rights.
Banning certain felons from publicly owned places is well within the law however, banning the same persons from privately owned yet open to the public places seems to be an overreach that is not within the Constitution. That being said, prohibiting a registrant from approaching or initiating a conversation with a minor (a very stupid idea unless said minor is working at the concession stand), seems to be within the law, however prohibiting a registrant from responding to a communication from a minor would violate the First Amendment.
The First Amendment has long been held by the SCOTUS as protected regardless of the criminal status of any person. The SCOTUS has allowed for the temporary removal of the Second Amendment rights however the !st, 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments have never been allowed to be stripped from an individual even when incarcerated.
To challenge this law I would have to apply a flanking attack and challenge the language. If they added the simple word “initiate” prior to communication then they could well stand the Constitutional test.
This is a poorly written bill devised to add punishment and to ensure that they can round all registrants up and remove them from society.
Communication can be non-verbal and still cause you to be arrested. In fact ignoring a person that speaks to you could be construed as communicating. That being said, unless you have a pressing reason to be in the place you would be better off not being there.
After reading through this the only part of it that is vague is the communication language. It is completely vague.
They are doing their best to make it impossible for a registrant to live in the State. We know their intent is retroactive punishment.
I do have to say though that removing the hotel/motel pools from the list is a good thing. At the same time they are putting lives at risk since we cannot warn minors of possible danger such as a diamond back in the bush that they are approaching or a tree limb that is broken and poised to fall. Or even a car that is coming at them.
The previous communication language was clear as to the intent of the communication. This communication language is not well thought out. In the fact that it prohibits a registrant from even stating a simple answer of “no” in the event a minor approaches them and asks a question. Nor does it allow for purchases to be made at concession stands or food trucks unless it is obvious that the employee is geriatric.