As anticipated, the State responded to our Ex Post Facto complaint with a Motion to Dismiss.
Their motion, a link to which can be found below, was completely expected. Naturally, this will be replied to and we will continue to keep you updated as things progress.
Okay, a fresh take on this motion to dismiss as it relates to travel. Apparently we have been reading too much into the “three-day” temporary residence definition. We assumed it meant 72 hours, but in FDLE’s own words:
“The general rule is that when the word ‘day’ is used it means calendar day which includes the entire day from midnight to midnight.” BLAH BLAH BLAH. “A day is an indivisible unit; the law does not recognize fractions of a day.”
Thus, if a registered citizen travels to Miami or anywhere else in or out of state (withstanding any destination state requirements of course) and checks into a motel at 4:00 P.M. on a Tuesday and checks out at 11:00 A.M. on a Friday, even though the stay is for three nights, the “three-day” rule is not violated.
Let’s do the math:
Tuesday 4pm to midnight, although 8 hours, doesn’t count as a “day.”
Tuesday midnight to Wednesday midnight = 1 day
Wednesday midnight to Thursday midnight = 2 days
Thursday midnight to Friday 11am, although 11 hours, doesn’t count as a day.
So registered citizens can book three-night motel stays without violating Floriduh law.
Correct – this is the FDLE’s position NOW that it has been sued.
Of course! Thanks.
Hey, I was just wondering why “Recent Comments” aren’t showing on this and all other pages?
I spent the afternoon at DSO for my annual registration. Because in-person is burdensome, I come prepared with everything needed to avoid additional in-person requirements.
After I paid my $25, searched and interviewed if anything has changed… I asked the officer about out of state travel and I tried to provide him info about an upcoming trip out of state. He told me that he needed the following before he would enter anything, as required by law: Dates of travel, method of travel; flight info , car; routes and hotels I would be staying at while driving, All addresses I would be staying overnight etc.
I asked if that was the statute said, or his interpretation. He said it was the law and if I could not provide all of the above, I would risk 20 years in prison if I was caught.
My question was how do you plan to drive somewhere or fly? What happens of there are detours, weather delays etc. Etc.
Because I couldnt provide him my exact itenerary, he refused to put it in the system.
I called FDLE for clarification. I was told no routes or plane info was necessary , but hotel o would be staying for mpre than 3 days would be.
How do we proceed, when no-one is on the same page and the sherrifs office or individual officer, interprets the law in a special way?
Does anyone here have better info for out-of-state travel?
Call FDLE while you are at the registration office and tell them they are refusing to register your travel.They can’t do that.
From a jailhouse lawyer’s point of view, the State has compelling arguments in its motion to dismiss (MTD). I would hope that FAC has a competent lawyer who will counter attack the points raised by the State, which rely on the precedent of government victories, by citing cases where the government’s dogma was ruled to be unconstitutional. The common sense approach will not work on those who have none. The very language of the MTD shows the arrogance of Pam Blondi and FDLE, who fully expect the case to be dismissed.
It is refreshing to know that I was right about the “three-day” bu11$hit though.
My husband requested court transcripts from NJ and were told that they would not send them unless it was to an attorney, which is BS. Then a few days later we received a copy of one page commitment order and low and behold, found that the court actually changed his commitment papers in 1996 (arrested 1990, long before Megan’s Law or Adam Walsh) so that he would be under Megan’s Law and then I suppose they would get money from the feds! My husband did not take a plea deal because he was not guilty (they offered him a flat 3 years) and took it to jury trial (just as NJ decided to retry the McMartin Daycare case). All it took was the accusation from his 1st wife (who discovered he was having an affair); a trial judge who questioned a witness from the bench and incompetence on the part of the Public Defenders office to get my husband convicted of 2nd degree Aggravated Sexual Assault and Endangering the Welfare of a child, for which he received 20 years with a 8 year mandatory minimum (he was and continues to be a first time offender). The year after he was incarcerated, his wife gave both of his children up to the state and then, after they finally maxed him out after 12 years (even after he did everything parole told him to do). His 1st wife committed suicide the month after I married him. Until my husband notified the state of Florida that he had moved here from NJ, he was able to move about freely with no constraints – NJ showed up on our door once a year to see he was still living there but now in FL he has to report 4 times a year in person. My husband was a registered voter in NJ, WA and PA, but Florida has permanently taken his right to vote away. 4 months after moving here, hubby has been banned for life from WDW (we visited every year for 10 years before moving here with no problem) and denied being able to ever take a cruise again (even though we had taken several with the same cruise line just the year before when living in NJ). If only someone had warned me the persecution we would be under by retiring and buying a house in Florida, there would have been NO WAY we would have moved to Floriduh. Please let everyone you know that is a registered sex offender NOT to move to Florida! I used to love this state, but now that I can’t get a job here because when an employer looks up my address they discover that my husband is a registered sex offender, they change their mind. I’ve taught Sunday School for years, am a Past Matron in OES, and have never been arrested, but now according to the State I live in and pay taxes in, I’m scum, not fit enough to clean someone’s toilets or give out treats at Halloween. Where’s the justice in that?
I know what your saying my wife is a professional and commutes an hour and tells her coworkers she’s single and uses a different address due to past problems like people looking her up when smart phones started coming out passing word around. Some of them become sexually aggressive toward her like they are owed male and female and some begin trying to match make her like she’s in a bad situation. When I met my wife there wasn’t all this crap we had Disney season tickets, I coached and ate lunch at my kids school people knew about me no-one cared most did the same thing now they have a life not attached to high school and they all run in the same circles none are “victim/predator” (no-one says offenders or knows there is a difference or cares to be politicly correct) its ridiculous! We are making our plans to leave Florida they make their money on the misery of other people now have their sights set on the registry.
Hey Mr. ASA and politicians!!!
FYI
The court said kool-aid is legal so, i’ll add sugar in it and you drink it, next year i’ll add antifreeze in it and you drink it, the year after i’ll add coloring to make your skin color, arsenic, etc… and you drink it and after all it is legal for us to have it in the kool-aid since the kool-aid was deemed legal
I see that FDLE already is handing FAC a few concessions, such as:
No strict liability after all. If you had no way of knowing that you were supposed to register something, then you cannot be convicted for not registering it.
Overnight stays of up to three nights, not two, do not require registration, because “the law does not recognize fractions of a day.”
Similarly for hotel-hopping, as someone has pointed out below (though this may prompt Lauren Book to claim, without evidence, that registration-free hotel hopping promotes trafficking or some such nonsense, and craft creative legislation).
In the bigger picture, I appreciate how they do not even attempt to argue that registries promote public safety, or that registrants pose a high risk to re-offend, only that higher courts already have held these to be the case in past years, so these issues must not be re-litigated [as we know what might happen!].
[Moderator, feel free not to publish my redundant older posts below. You can see that many of us have this on our minds].
I like how they do not even attempt to argue that registries promote public safety, nor that offenders pose a high risk of recidivism, only that higher courts have already said that and they cannot be reversed.
“dissemination of truthful information” about a criminal record “in furtherance of a legitimate governmental objective” does not constitute punishment, Smith at 99; that the law imposes no physical restraint and does not restrain sex offenders from changing jobs or residences, Id. at 100; that the law had a legitimate nonpunitive purpose of public safety that was not a sham or pretext, Id.at 102-03; and that the law was not excessive because “the regulatory means chosen” were “reasonable in light of the nonpunitive objective.” Id.at 105.” ….
BUT what about vehicle information, employment info, email info etc… criminal records don’t include that or did you forget!
Did anyone else catch the contradictions: For example (paraphrasing):
“We do not care where you go after you leave the state; we just want to know the initial address where you claim you will be staying. If, after you arrive at that initial address, you decided to leave and go spend a few days here, a few weeks there…no worries…you do not need to let us know”. WTF? Then why the nonsense of requiring an initial address in the first place?
“We know people may ‘hotel hop’ and, in doing so, will not trigger the address registration scheme…no worries, if you hotel hop then no need to let us know where you are.” Then why the freaking requirement to report travel in the first place?!
And the keep referencing the Smith case without venturing into the ginormous “trip wired” criminal scheme their so-called ‘civil scheme’ has morphed into, although it has always been criminal from the beginning. And they only gave a yawn’s worth mention of the recidivism facts elaborated upon in Plaintiff’s lawsuit. In my opinion, there is nothing else to conclude than that Florida’s useless AG is grasping at straws and hoping the court is utterly stupid.
(State vs Marcel 67 S0 3d 1223 “Birthday Rule” see where they compute years as time between two dates not Jan1 to Jan 1. So Days means midnight to midnight but years means “fiscal” now.
Write this down keep it you pouch. 943 requires years of legal knowledge, case history from its creation in 1977 and cases not even from this state to construed it. How ever the “tie must goto to defendant” Key Words “Florida Rule of Lenity”.
before, “`[o]ne of the most fundamental principles of Florida law is that penal statutes must be strictly construed according to their letter.'” Id. (quoting Perkins v. State, 576 So.2d 1310, 1312 (Fla. 1991)). “Indeed, our system of jurisprudence is founded on a belief that everyone must be given sufficient notice of those matters that may result in a deprivation of life, liberty, or property.” Perkins, 576 So.2d at 1312; see also United States v. Santos, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025, 170 L.Ed.2d 912, ___ (2008) (plurality opinion) (“Under a long line of our decisions, the tie must go to the defendant. The rule of lenity requires ambiguous criminal laws to be interpreted in favor of the defendants subjected to them.”); State v. Winters, 346 So.2d 991, 993 (Fla. 1977) (“Penal statutes must be strictly construed in favor of the accused where there is doubt as to their meaning and must be sufficiently explicit so that men of common intelligence may ascertain whether a contemplated act is within or without the law, and so that the ordinary man may determine what conduct is proscribed by the statute.”).”
1997 (not1977)
If this is civil why can’t we just all plead the 5th amendment in full text? Most all the questions “asked” are because we really are under criminal investigation selectively with no mirada protection with out due process for prosecution with regards to an 943. 0345 offense.
We have to give this testimony to the Law which hands the information over to the same branch, an investigator that patrols the web, residence, autos, to build a case against you based solely on your word (where you say you’ll be) between what you or testimony where they can monitor you better, warrantless and then prosecute you for things that aren’t really even a crime except your “subject” to the jeopardy of original crime. They do this searching for discrepancies in what you say and what they see even though what they see isn’t at all illegal in any other sense except your past crime… “subject”.
There is alot of case law where during incarceration offenders invoking the 5th (in full text only) were upheld refusing to answer court ordered treatment questions of past or post crimes. (related and unrelated to the original)
Lifetime testimony and giving possibly incriminating statements, when due diligence is the responsibility for police and public is extortion. The tax payers pay for this information (and I understand there isn’t a very high demand for for it) and law enforcements makes wages, some of which are private “for profit” affiliates. There is no pay check in my mail every time I spend the day changing addresses, this information is being taken from me under duress, Ive made no infraction to criminal laws. Only criminal prosecution or rouge law takes away ones freedom of movement by restrictions (imprisonment). Not having a firearm isn’t a restrictive punishment but an avoidance punishment. Avoidance is not all we have todo.
They complain that plaintiffs are not “clearly reading” to statutes. I complain that defendants are not “clearly reading” the Constitution.
If I were guilty of violating the Constitution I suppose I would want a dismissal also. I trust they will not get away with it. It’s amazing how twisted our interpretation of the Constitution has become over the years. Even ‘freedom of speech’ would be unrecognizable to our Founding Fathers.
@Capt.: I would certainly NOT bet they won’t get away with it because there is a good possibility that they will. (Janice Bellucci, Esq. of ACSOL’s last lawsuit against IML was based on the U.S. DoS violating it’s own Administratvie Law requirements. It was clear that they had done so. Nonetheless, DoS’s Request for Dismissal was granted.)