Person ordered removed from Florida Sex Offender Registry
Finally, some great news to report.
A person (note: no longer a “person required to register as a sex offender”) has been ordered removed from the Florida Sex Offender Registry.
Florida Statue 943.0435(11) contains a provision that says, an individual “shall be considered for removal of the requirement to register as a sexual offender” if they meet certain requirements, including; it being at least 25 years (formerly 20) since they were released from any sanction, have not been arrested for any other crimes, and meet a qualifying offense (not limited to Romeo and Juliet).
Attorney Ron Kleiner was successful in obtaining this relief on behalf of one of his clients, who will now become a “person” again!
If you feel you might qualify for relief under this provision contact your attorney, or for more information write to [email protected].
Discover more from Florida Action Committee
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Finally a person that gets relief with that provision. I was wondering many times if there were ever such a case and couldn’t find any. Truly happy for the person. No more registering or anything.
I have to wait about 20 years to meet that provision.
But wait, this is a provision to the original 1997 Statute. We’re not at 25 years yet. Did this guy get the Court to allow for 20 years since that was the law at the that time?
yes
I had been arrested for a failure to register but they filed a no information and didnt pursue. No charges. Did they screw me? Does that now mean i cant do this?
You should speak with your lawyer.
Is this the first case brought to a Court under the provision?
Is it safe to say that a positive outcome regarding the ex post facto case would also give back to some of us the requirement of 20 years rather than 25. Year 2000, I think, is when that changed.
Any idea which county, judge and prosecutor it involved? The way the statute reads, a Court must first agree to consider the case, using certain requirements as their guideline, then the original prosecuting attorney (if still there) is the one assigned to it and then both he/she and the judge must agree. Even with the provision, there exists a lot of “ifs.”
That’s good news! Thanks Ron Kleiner. I’ll be researching to find if there is anyone else. We’re two years now into the 25. (1997).
I’m sorry I can’t add. 1997 means we’re only 22 years from the original statute itself!? So this guy really did pull a miracle. Hmmmm…
prior to 2007 it was 20 years. He argued they can’t move the finish line.
He argued in THIS case that they can’t move the finish line, and that argument prevailed and resulted in the removal?
Or was the individual simply eligible under the newer (25 year) statute as well?
Prior to WHEN in 2007?
When in 2007 did the change become law? That actually matters in my case and to that of any others who committed a crime in…2007.
July 1, 2007.
So if your date of offense precedes this, you should be in the 20-year vice 25-year “relief” window. Of course you should be free of all the other requirements that have been piled on since then as well. But that’s another story.
If anyone is interested in knowing how I determined this, just ask.
It’s the first that’s come across our radar.
We do have the full case information but with the FORMER registrant getting out of the public eye, the last thing we want to do is put them back into it by bringing any attention to the case.
Yes – there are “ifs”. The prosecution does not need to agree but the judge obviously does. The statute reads the court “shall” consider – it’s discretionary whether it’s granted, not discretionary if the court considers it.
I will try to get Mr. Kleiner to speak on our member call next month.
Wow, this is huge! Thanks for the info!
” I will try to get Mr. Kleiner to speak on our member call next month.”
That would be great!! Thanks.
Interesting that offenses under s. 800.04.6 and .7 are not included. These are second degree felonies and not life or 1st degree. You would think that the statue would at least allow removal for those convicted of “less critical” offenses. Perhaps those two offenses were added after fs 943.0436 was enacted into law and should be revised.
I wouldn’t be surprised if they add more disqualifying offenses to the 25 year provision from now and years to come to prevent more people from getting relief. Imagine if you are close to the 25 year mark and they add your offense to the disqualifying list. That really blows. Hopefully in such a case, it can be argued similar to the – you can’t move the finish line of 20-25 year argument – .
@ABC
I think those offenses are the ones ( the ones of 2nd degree felonies you mentioned are subject for relief ( the list you are seeing for the provision is “disqualifying” offenses – the first degree ones and so on ) Interestingly, some second degree felonies which do have relief are included in the disqualifying list only with conditions, such as, if the courts find that the offense was forced or coerced or the victim was unclothed.
From any sanction…? Does this mean off probation/supervision? Or the date of the original offense?
Does this mean that is DOES NOT include required registration every 3-6-12 months (which IS a “sanction”)
Does this apply to only a small, minute group; like those caught peeing on a dumpster, or does it include sex-offenders and/or predators who meet the same criteria?
What are the “qualifying offenses”.???
But anyway—-YOU CAN GET OFF THE FLORIDA REGISTRY!!!!!
Problem is, None of us “regular people” will be able to afford the “tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars” to retain an attorney.
It should just be Mandatory to release, and off the list after 25 years
Sean – it’s release from probation.
The offenses include:
a. For a violation of s. 787.01 or s. 787.02;
b. For a violation of s. 794.011, excluding s. 794.011(10);
c. For a violation of s. 800.04(4)(a)2. where the court finds the offense involved a victim under 12 years of age or sexual activity by the use of force or coercion;
d. For a violation of s. 800.04(5)(b);
e. For a violation of s. 800.04(5)(c)2. where the court finds the offense involved the use of force or coercion and unclothed genitals or genital area;
f. For a violation of s. 825.1025(2)(a);
g. For any attempt or conspiracy to commit any such offense;
h. For a violation of similar law of another jurisdiction; or
i. For a violation of a similar offense committed in this state which has been redesignated from a former statute number to one of those listed in this subparagraph.
FAC maybe I’m wrong, but these seem like the offenses that do not qualify for relief with the 25 year provision.
You are correct, Debbie.
in 2007 they changed the statute to 25 years and added the exclusions.
For offenses arising before October 1995 but after January 1, 1994, are those exclusions retroactive or retrospectively applied?
What if the offense is from 1995, would the excisions fall under the moving the goal line?
Thanks for the correction.
Also – it’s not “tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars”, Sean.
this is what is confusing to me
“This is what i found under 98.02
Sexual Offender/Predator Designations:
• A sexual predator who was designated a sexual predator by a court before October 1, 1998 and who has been lawfully released from confinement, supervision or sanction for 10 years and has not been arrested for any felony or misdemeanor since release, may petition the court for removal of the designation. A sexual predator or sexual offender who was designated by a court on or after October 1, 1998, and released from supervision or confinement for at least 20 years and has not been arrested for any felony or misdemeanor offense since release, may petition the court for removal of the sexual offender/predator designation.”
i was designated between them dates and it is mute
” who was designated a sexual predator by a court before October 1, 1998″
and
“who was designated by a court on or after October 1, 1998”
but what about those in between
just my luck
I hope this person is removed and they do get their life back. However I know that in reality, this will never truly be the case. This is a major step forward though. The websites that scrape the data off the state websites may not remove him/her from their sites, however. Perhaps a name change after the removal, in a secret court would be in order due to the circumstances.