UPDATED with Public Hearing Date: Some Brevard County Talking Points
The Public Hearing on the Amendment to the Brevard County Ordinance is scheduled on the Agenda for Tuesday August 25th at 9am. Location is Brevard County Government Complex at 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way Viera, FL 32940 in the Commission Chambers. Registered Citizens are not able to attend due to this same ordinance because the complex is located within 1000’ of a school.
If you are a family member or concerned citizen, and able to attend the meeting, we will be organizing a group to attend and to present at the public hearing. If you are a registered citizen or otherwise unable to attend, but wish to be heard, please write a letter to the commissioners and send copy to us. All correspondence, questions, plans to attend should be sent to [email protected] or call 407-782-6912.
We need your support to stop this amendment which will 1) change the definition of a park to include 1000’ around certain private properties and 2) add 1000’ around certain businesses as exclusion areas to the already 1000’ around schools, parks, playground and daycares. Read the Legislative text here for an explanation of the proposed changes.
- The Legislative Text states that “pharmacies” are NOT excluded, yet we have heard from members that they are told they cannot go to certain pharmacies. What has been your experience? Specifically what locations have you been told, by probation or Sheriff, you are NOT permitted to go due to the current ordinance, and how will this proposed addition of certain business impact you or your family? Let’s hear from you in comments below or email [email protected].
Brevard County currently has an ordinance that makes it illegal for registrants to enter into or remain within the 1000-foot buffer zone surrounding any school, daycare center, park or playground, with only a few exceptions given. Now Commissioner Tobia would like to add an amendment to that ordinance, whereby private businesses would be able to declare themselves the center of an exclusion zone, banning anyone registered as a sexual offender or predator from entering within a 1000-foot radius of the outermost boundary of their business.
Our concern is not just Brevard County. It is the domino effect that can lead other counties to pass such ordinances, as has happened in the past. We need as many people as possible to write these commissioners. Currently, there has been very little opposition within Brevard County, so the commissioners feel comfortable with passing it. If you are not a resident of Brevard County, you can still let the commissioners know of your concern as you do not want ordinances like this one spreading to your county. But Brevard County residents, you really need to speak up. Without you, we are all sunk.
These are the email addresses and phone numbers for the commissioners along with talking points for those who need some suggestions:
Rita Pritchett (Vice Chair), 321-607-6901: [email protected]
Bryan Lober (Chair), 321-454-6601: [email protected]
John Tobia, 321-633-2075: [email protected]
Curt Smith, 321-633-2044: [email protected]
Kristina Isnardi, 321-253-6611: [email protected]
- Tobia state that there is a high propensity to re-offend: Re-offense rate for committing another sex crime is in the single digits. There are numerous studies out there to support this fact, one being the May of 2019 U. S. Department of Justice Report on the Recidivism Rate over a 9-Year Period for Released Inmates Whose Most Serious Offense Was Rape/Sexual Assault being 7.7%.
- Commissioner Smith inquired as to what had happened to initiate such an amendment: Tobia had not a single case to give Smith. The 867 registrants in Brevard County are not re-offending.
- Unconstitutional: It would be applied retroactively against people whose offense was before the ordinance was passed.
- We already have Florida Statute 856.022: This statute prohibits anyone on the sex offense registry from loitering within 300 feet of where children congregate.
- This amendment is proposing 1000 feet away from the outermost boundary all around the property: One thousand feet is 3 and 1/3 football fields. The area of a circle with a radius of 1000 feet is 3,141,592 square feet. The radii on these circles would actually be longer than 1000 feet if taken from the center of the property, making the area even greater.
- There is no research to support exclusion/proximity/buffer zones: Ask the Brevard County commissioners to provide their research that shows the effectiveness of having these zones.
- Enforcement/compliance would be impossible: How do you know if you are 900 ft or 1050 ft from the outermost boundary? Will a map be provided to help registrants and law enforcement?
- This amendment will keep law-abiding registrants from meeting the constitutional basic needs provided to all citizens of this country: attending government meetings; visiting banks, businesses, restaurants, and in family/friends’ homes that they have been doing for years without incident.
- Lober wants the amendment to apply to those labeled as a predator: What about those labeled as a “predator” who are law-abiding citizens now? Released murderers, gang leaders, and armed robbers who re-offend are given the right to live and be physically present anywhere in Brevard County. Mr. Lober stated that “predators” are registrants who have two or more second degree felonies or have committed a first degree felony. In the statute on predators, it defines a predator as “repeat sexual offenders, sexual offenders who use physical violence, and sexual offenders who prey on children.” In Florida, the term is used for anyone where the victim is under 12 years old. Florida does not differentiate between “over the cloth” and “under the cloth”, as some states do. All one has to do is touch a child under the age of 12 over the cloth on the breast, buttock, or between the legs momentarily, and the prosecutor has the choice to classify the accused as a predator. Florida does not use risk assessments, so everyone is put in the same box. There are many people labeled as a predator who are leading law-abiding lives and are not a threat to anyone. What Mr. Lober is really requesting is a risk assessment which he will unfortunately not get in Florida.
- Tobia stated that anyone violating this new amendment could not only face jail time of up to 60 days but also a possible fine of up to $500 and be subject to consideration for incarceration if there are other violations: Why is Mr. Tobia looking for more ways to incarcerate people who are now law-abiding citizens?
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
WRT Florida Statute 856.022, it applies only to a person whose offense was committed on or after May 26, 2010, thus not retroactive. Whereas Bretard’s ordinance would be retroactive and unconstitutional, but that doesn’t mean anything anymore.
Commissioner Tobia,
I have been following your amendment proposal since I first heard about it. I must admit that rarely do we get to see such an ill conceived, lack of purpose amendment coming from a politician who will do anything to deceive the voters into thinking he has their best interests in mind. The lack of professionalism and factual support is appalling. Can I assume that you have reams of factual evidence to support your proposal? Actually I doubt that you do because such evidence does not exists supporting a high recidivism rate for registered citizens. You come into the commission meeting spewing innuendo, lies, hate, and concocted fear while your fellow commissioners know little about the subject and cannot even challenge you with an intelligent question…except maybe Commissioner Lober.
It doesn’t take a whole lot of courage to to make charges and propose regulations that will affect hundreds of individuals and their families while you are sequestered in a chamber that is off limits to the people most impacted. Would you be willing to go one on one with a valid, factual study supporting high recidivism in opposition to a valid, factual study supporting a low recidivism rate? I suspect the high rate reports would run out long before the low rate reports. Your proposal is backed up only by garbage.
As a representative of the people of Brevard why don’t you try to do something positive for individuals and their families instead of trying to put yourself on the pedestal of righteousness? Anyone with half a brain can see what you are trying to do. I trust your fellow commissioners will see through you and put you in your place if your proposal ever comes up for a vote. It is people of your ilk that are destroying the unity and fabric of this nation. You are trying to destroy lives and are completely clueless in the process.
It’s ok if there’s no research to support proximity ordinances. Intuitively, proximity ordinances work, and that’s why commissioners support them.
But the facts are more powerful than this, aren’t they— it’s not that there’s no research. There IS in fact research, and that research affirmatively CONCLUDES that such ordinances ARE NOT effective.
Which might be a more powerful observation than there being no research. But am I right here, or am I mixed up— have proximity ordinances been studied, or has it just been residency restrictions?
You can bet that the Books have a hand in this.
Additional points that two board members brought up, but that I hadn’t even considered, even though they seem powerful:
Brevard businesses already have the ability to exclude registrants, without any ordinance amendment whatsoever. That’s because they can view or scan ID’s at the door, and then they can trespass the person if they wish, and law enforcement will enforce that trespass if necessary. So all the ordinance appears to accomplish, beyond existing law, is to give law enforcement additional reasons to arrest people!
Any reason we should not use those points as well?
Anyway, thank you for all these great talking points.
*b/c registry status already is coded into registrants’ licenses, and commissioners may not be aware of that.
What “businesses” are we talking about here? What business would turn someone’s money away because of registry status? Are we talking about a Walgreens where you need to show ID to buy cigarettes? Are we talking about restaurants (when do they ever actually check IDs)? Are we talking about Staples or Publix or what? What businesses are turning away people on the registry?
Any business (or other facility) with an ID scanner can exclude registrants if they want to. Examples include Bravoz, other childrens’ entertainment businesses, certain day care centers, certain YMCA’s, certain private schools (and some public ones).
If you didn’t know about these scanners, that’s good news, it means your family hasn’t been hurt by them in any way.
And you know who else doesn’t seem to know about this? Chairman Lober and the other commissioners. Unless we mentioned it in one of our letters to them. And I admit that I haven’t. Have you?
Did I answer your question?
Now we are left with two choices:
The ability to scan IDs (which we already have and can’t eliminate within the next week);
OR
The ability for a business to declare themselves and all their neighbors to be an exclusion zone, enforced by police via arrests?
(h/t: FAC Legal Committee, for pointing this out to me and others)
Ok, these “businesses” you pointed out are obviously child related. Not that every offender did something to a kid but when we broadly use the term “businesses”, it makes some of us wonder what businesses they’re referring to.
But no matter how many feet a school is from a pharmacy (I’m sure I’ve never seen a school right next to a Walgreens or CVS) I find the states/counties laws/ordinances to be flat out violating the constitutional rights of people REGARDLESS of their criminal past.
And the argument needs to be made: “What happened after 25+ years of the registry that ALL OF A SUDDEN we need exclusion zones?”
That was the same question posed by Commissioner Smith. And they all know the answer.
Lober is willing to apply the amendment to offenders now as well. He will propose a list of exceptions by original offense, ie, someone who has only been convicted of offense x may still access the child safety zone. This proposal will affect a broader cross-section than just state-defined predators and was agreed to between Lober and Tobia towards the conclusion of the video discussion.
I don’t think Lober has figured out yet that either scheme has the same flaw, ie, that original offense is a poor predictor of risk. It does not take into account the length of time that the person has been in the community offense-free, for example, whether they’ve completed treatment, or whether they’re a lot older than they were when they last offended. All of these are risk factors he is not considering. If we apply the new restrictions to equally to those in the community who have made efforts to rehabilitate themselves and those who haven’t, then what incentive is there for Brevard registrants to work on their rehabilitation? Tobia is correct that the legislature determined a blanket high risk to re-offend regardless, but that determination has proven to be factually false, and by now the commissioners should have seen the statistics.
GREAT talking points. Thank you, Media Committee, and others.
Jacob – your comments are also great talking points to add to the discussion.
Here’s another great talking point to consider about this type of decision right here, though:
He will propose a list of exceptions by original offense, ie, someone who has only been convicted of offense x may still access the child safety zone*
The average, uneducated, doesn’t care to be educated American who happens to notice one of their registrant neighbors in these areas are not going to understand that he/she is there because his/her offense doesn’t qualify them to be banned from the area. The nosy busy body goodie-two-shoes who thinks all sex offenses are child related will probably call the police and inconvenience the registrant for no reason.
So this idea of making such an ordinance or law based on the type of offense makes the people pushing for it sound like they’re taking certain people into consideration. But they’re truly not. They know anyone who notices a registered person in an area that the news media will blab all over TV, will try to make that person’s life difficult.
THAT is a talking point which needs to be mentioned. The average person doesn’t care what or when your offense was, they only care that you’re on the registry and therefore you’re scum. Period.
Another way in which this will be a massive waste of police resources, even though Tobia maintains that it is “free.”