It is on Pacer, if you have an account you can get it there. 4:21-cv-00085 is the case number. My question is can there be an appeal, I imagine the state could. It will be good once FAC releases a statement.

The problem with the ex post facto challenge is that it has failed numerous times in federal court with regard to Florida’s registration requirements. As offenders, we do not want the legislature to pile on more onerous requirements. But, that may need to happen to finally tip the scales in an ex post facto challenge where it needs to be proven that the statute is punitive in its effect and intent. Until then, victories, such as Harper, keep the legislators in check and provide a form of relief that will keep offenders from inadvertently violating the statute. Now, you can take your family to Orlando for a week without worrying about making a trip to the sheriff’s office and DMV.

So, the 2018 statute required in-person reporting to the sheriff’s office and the DMV within 48 hours of the new “residence” and offender was staying in the Florida. Yesterday’s order struck the duplicative reporting to the DMV and the in-person reporting requirement to the sheriff’s office. Since the statute does not say that the reporting of the “residence” must be in-person, the Court determined that to report in-person within 48 hours was too burdensome to withstand constitutional muster. So, the Court ordered the Commissioner to make available an on-line reporting system within 60 days.

“The [judge’s] heart is a stream of water in the hand of the Lord; he turns it wherever he will.” Proverbs 21:1

So, only the component of “in-person” reporting was found to be “facially unconstitutional,” since we still have to report the travel online? That’s all we won?

So then in your opinion what does this mean for our expost facto I lawsuit. That our other lawsuit must be narrowly tailored to focus on “violation of substantive due process” and a “rational basis for legislative purposes”?

I’m trying to not jump to conclusions but it seems it’s a win but not the win we wanted. Or it will make our main lawsuit a little more difficult since we have to overcome legislative purpose standing , (i.e. they’re going to claim public safety) instead of us just us relying on the ex post facto argument.

Thank you for keeping us informed on the lawsuit.

LOL laymens terms. If the State does not create a place on the portal then we still have to go in?

The order did not find the in-state traveling reporting requirement as violative of the ex post facto clause. The holding was that it was facially unconstitutional in violation of substantive due process which could not withstand a rational basis for a legislative purpose.

If the FDLE doesnot create a space on the Portal for this reporting does that mean we do not have to report it at all? Or Is this just a work around without striking that portion from the statute?

Nice win just trying to understand the Scope of the win.