Prosecutor Stacey Honowitz wants her arrest post removed
We received an email from an attorney requesting we remove a certain post from our website. The post concerned Broward Sex Crimes Prosecutor Stacey Honowitz’s arrest for shoplifting at a Publix Supermarket in 2018. The removal request appears below:
Good Day,
I hope this message finds you well in these trying times. I am writing on behalf of Stacey Honowitz to kindly request the removal of the article published to the above-copied link. The incident, a misunderstanding, is a most embarrassing blemish on Ms. Honowitz’s otherwise pristine record and career. The charge was readily nolle prossed (please see attached). As you can certainly appreciate, the continued publication has caused and continues to cause Ms. Honowitz great distress and damage to her reputation.
Please do not hesitate to reach out should you have any questions. We thank you in advance for your time dedicated to this sensitive matter.
Cordially Yours,
Vanessa McGill
Stacey Honowitz is a sex crimes prosecutor and an advocate for harsher sex offender restrictions. To quote Ms. Honowitz, “Tougher laws [are] needed to protect our kids from sex offenders.”
While we agree with Ms. Honowitz that sexual abuse needs to be prevented, we strongly disagree that tougher laws are needed to protect anyone from persons forced to register as “sex offenders”. The overwhelming majority (95%+) of people on the registry will not re-offend and are trying to live productive lives, yet the continued publication of their information on a public registry prevents them from obtaining employment, housing and other basic needs for themselves and their families.
For most registrants, their crime was a one-time offense and a complete aberration in an otherwise law abiding life. Surely most were guilty, but many were not. Some were wrongfully accused, baited and switched in a sting, or a misunderstanding for which they took a plea decades ago out of convenience and to avoid the risk of jail time without knowing what was to come as far as the registry. Arguably their incidents are also a “most embarrassing blemish” in an “otherwise pristine record” and “the continued publication” of their information on a sex offender registry “has caused and continues to cause” them “great distress and damage”.
So what to do about this request to remove the article? Since the letter came from an attorney who lists one of her areas of practice as defamation cases, the implication is that if we chose not to take down the article we might face a lawsuit. However, the Miami Herald’s story, Veteran Sex-Crimes Prosecutor Accused of Shoplifting is still up. So is the Sun-Sentinel’s coverage. The surveillance footage of her sticking the cosmetic items in her purse and leaving the store has not been taken down. So why should we remove our post?
We did update the story to state that the charges were nolle prossed, but do we need to take down the entire article? Even if the shoplifting incident was unintentional and she simply forgot to pay for the items or mindlessly put them in her purse without realizing, she prosecutes people who unknowingly or unintentionally violate a technical registration rule all the time and even if decades have passed without incident, her office still vigorously opposes petitions for removal from the registry.
It’s very possible that the arrest has given Ms. Honowitz a different perspective and greater empathy for people who “as [she] can certainly appreciate” are suffering great distress and damage from their continued publication on the registry. Or, it’s possible she could care less. We’d like to see where she stands in light of the fact that she’s “kindly requesting” we take down a post.
Frankly we’re impressed that our little forum would even concern her enough to retain an attorney to contact us. But, before we act on the request, we’d really like to hear the thoughts of our membership, so please feel free to share them in the comments below. We’d also love to hear from Ms.Honowitz herself, given the ironic nature of her request. If she would like to be a guest on a future member call, consider this a public invitation.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Though Nolle Prosequi is not a conviction and her case has been dismissed, it still remains on the electronic court (public) record revealing the arrest. It should be expected of her too immediately file for expungement.
As for the implied threat of defamation, posting of archived information of an arrest shouldn’t be consider defamatory.
BTW, I have friends who own small convenient stores, these people are really a tight knit network, They do have flyers (behind the counters) of those arrested for shoplifting. Profit margins are very thin and they always look out for those who use their purse as shopping carts and “forget” to pay.
PAUL, CHIEF OF POLICE, LOUISVILLE,
ET AL.v. DAVIS.
Respondent appeared on the flyer because on June 14, 1971, he had been arrested in Louisville on a charge of shoplifting. He had been arraigned on this charge in September 1971, and, upon his plea of not guilty, the charge had been “filed away with leave [to reinstate],” a disposition which left the charge outstanding. Thus, at the time petitioners caused the flyer to be prepared and circulated respondent had been charged with shoplifting but his guilt or innocence of that offense had never been resolved. Shortly after circulation of the flyer the charge against respondent was finally dismissed by a judge of the Louisville Police Court.
Respondent’s due process claim is grounded upon his assertion that the flyer, and in particular the phrase “Active Shoplifters” appearing at the head of the page upon which his name and photograph appear, impermissibly deprived him of some “liberty” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. His complaint asserted that the “active shoplifter” designation would inhibit him from entering business establishments for fear of being suspected of shoplifting and possibly apprehended, and would seriously impair his future employment opportunities. Accepting that such consequences may flow from the flyer in question, respondent’s complaint would appear to state a classical claim for defamation actionable in the courts of virtually every State. Imputing criminal behavior to an individual is generally considered defamatory per se, and actionable without proof of special damages.
Respondent brought his action, however, not in the state courts of Kentucky, but in a United States District Court for that State. He asserted not a claim for defamation under the laws of Kentucky, but a claim that he had been deprived of rights secured to him by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Concededly if the same allegations had been made about respondent by a private individual, he would have nothing more than a claim for defamation under state law. But, he contends, since petitioners are respectively an official of city and of county government, his action is thereby transmuted into one for deprivation by the State of rights secured under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Respondent’s claim is far afield from this line of decisions. He claims constitutional protection against the disclosure of the fact of his arrest on a shoplifting charge. His claim is based, not upon any challenge to the State’s ability to restrict his freedom of action in a sphere contended to be “private,” but instead on a claim that the State may not publicize a record of an official act such as an arrest. None of our substantive privacy decisions hold this or anything like this, and we decline to enlarge them in this manner.
None of respondent’s theories of recovery were based upon rights secured to him by the Fourteenth Amendment Petitioners therefore were not liable to him under § 1983. The judgment of the Court of Appeals holding otherwise is Reversed.
So couldn’t those same (Paul, Chief of Police, Louisville et al. v. Davis) arguments be used against the Registries?? 🤔
They have been and is why they have been found to be non-punitive. A more interesting case was Wisconsin V Constantineau.
The Act allowed designated persons to forbid sale or gift of liquor to persons who “by excessive drinking” demonstrated traits that rendered them possibly “dangerous to the community,” and the chief of police posted notices about the Appellee without any prior notice.
Justice Rehnquist held that defendant police Chiefs interference merely with Davis’ in reputation alone was not actionable under section 1983 and fourteenth amendment. At most, in the courts view, plaintiff Davis’ had alleged a claim, under State law, of tortious defamation by State officials. Section 1983 and the fourteenth amendment did not make every tort by state officials a deprivation of the rights secured under the fourteenth amendment.
The court had distinguished Wisconsin V Constantineau on the ground that more had been at stake in that case than mere reputation. Not only had Constantineau been “posted” as an excessive drinker, but the fact of the posting made it unlawful for proprietors of liquor stores and taverns who had notice of the posting to sell liquor to her.
Whatever the merits of the courts decision in Davis’, the decision in Constantineau obviously has important implications for the posted sex offender denied housing opportunities.
But than I’m just another jail house lawyer
Miami Dade County, retroactively and without any prior notice, made it unlawful for proprietors of rental units to rent to the “Posted” sex offender within a designated exclusionary zone under penalty of law.
Not only has DOE been “Posted” as a sex offender but the fact of the posting made it unlawful for proprietors of rental units to rent to him.
So, you can take away my housing but not my drink. Got it
It’s not a “defamation of character”. A defamation of character would be to make up a story that she did something and have no evidence to prove she did it. In this case, she DID SOME-THING and as a result of the SOME-THING she did, she landed in court before a judge. So all FAC is doing is re-reporting an already published report. With other publications sharing the same story about her “short comings”, there is no way a judge would see this as a “defamation of character”. Keep the story posted. Let her get a taste of her own medicine.
See Time inc V Firestone.
I want to say I think she should be prayed for.. How many of us want our pictures off the internet too? I suggest reaching out to that attorney and explaining to that person Having a picture on the internet is not punishment but a way to inform the public of events.. after all the internet is a public square and there is a 1st Amendment Right to freedom of expression after all reprinting an article does not warrant deframement ; there were stores cameras who caught the event..
I know a lot of people who are woman who use a shopping cart instead of purse.. and while her purse was open to pay for the items she did have the chance to pay for the items she put in there those items would have been on top.
My suggestion is reaching out to her and explain the facts if she feels upset about her picture on internet perhaps she would change the law after all she did get vacation instead of going to jail.. Let us pray for her
Even Saul found the LORD on the road to Damascus after killing and procute his fellow people.
Correct me if I am wrong FAC, but at least since I have been active with FAC forums, I have never seen a story/post with as many ongoing comments as this story?
For sure this one hits a nerve for all of us, and we are showing how passionate we feel about the subject. Also, this one we CAN do something about by letting it sink in to Stacey Honowitz what we go through every day of our lives.
Additionally, as much as her family is embarrassed by this, think of what our families go through. I doubt her family faces death threats, slashed tires, eggs thrown at their house, nasty stares and the list goes on.
Her family? Hah.
These prosecutors get letters from defendants families constantly. Agonizing letters begging for mercy for the accused that would break the heart of anyone who had one.
Prosecutors get these letters, scroll for anything incriminating, have a little chuckle, wipe their behind with them, and throw them away.
She has sentenced countless families to lifetimes of torment.
Screw her, and screw her family.
It makes me wonder now just how many people who are authority figures of all types come into this forum on a regular basis just to see what FAC posts and what we say on here as well… Hmm. . .
Debra
Probably she just googled her story and all things related to the case came up or she paid someone to search for any mentions of the arrests. Just my opinion but doubt she spends her time reading what we are talking about unless it is about her in this instance.
@CherokeeJack
Possibly.
But I think those that work in the sex crimes “business” ; i.e. Prosecutors, Law Enforcement, The Books family, even those who take matters into their on hands like vigilantes. etc. etc. often times (once in a while ) come on here and see what is going on and who is posting here and about what. I would also think those who have our best interests of course; ie, defense attorneys, activists, family members, and friends.
Just a gut feeling. That’s all. Call it women’s intuition I guess.
Debra
You are correct. I was shocked once when FAC allowed someone to come on here and state we should all be killed. I realize now why they let it stay up. It shows the crap we face everyday and the threats against are VERY real and sometimes not just words.