UPDATED 2/13/2026 – Call to Action on HB 45 and SB 212

35 thoughts on “UPDATED 2/13/2026 – Call to Action on HB 45 and SB 212”

• tearfuleagle

  February 17, 2026

  Here is my concern as it looks like, to me they do have a proximity statement in there:

  A person described in subsection (1) commits loitering and prowling by a person convicted of a sexual offense against a minor if, in committing loitering and prowling, he or she was
  within 500 feet of a place where children were congregating.

  Here is the loitering and prowling part: 856.022 Loitering or prowling by certain offenders in close
  proximity to children; prohibition on contact or communication with children in certain locations”

  So, here is the issue, and where I am confused, FAC-3 help me out here. It seems to me that there is a conflict. One says you can’t be within 500 feet of a place where children were congregating but their definition of the Loitering and prowling seems to prohibit the contact or communication with children at certain locations (park, school, pools, splash pads, etc.)

  Reply
• B$

  February 17, 2026

  Can we get an update based on the rules committee hearing? If I am reading their amendment properly, they have gotten rid of the proximity restriction altogether and just made the littering statute stricter. The residency restriction for swimming pools looks the same. Can someone from FAC confirm?

  Reply
  • FAC-3

    February 17, 2026

    We are awaiting members of our Legislative Committee to return from Tallahassee, where they appeared at the hearing and are currently meeting with lawmakers to continuing pushing to whittle away at what remains of this bill. Preliminarily, it does seem as though we have been successful in killing the proximity ordinance. Instead they beefed up the proximity ordinance by not making it unlawful to be at these places, but to approach or speak to a minor (who is not related) – which nobody should be doing anyhow – at these places. The bill still contains enhancements to the residency restrictions, which continues to be a problem. A more comprehensive update will be forthcoming as soon as everyone is done for the day.

    Reply
    • tearfuleagle

      February 17, 2026

      Thank you FAC-3 for your words. I am happy that you always keep it 100.

      Reply
• Elphaba

  February 16, 2026

  So are hotels, rv parks, and any pool where no one under 18 is allowed excluded now? The bill on the Florida senate site seems to say that, but it’s all so wildly confusing. It also seems to say this law only applies to those with convictions after October 2004, again if I’m understanding it correctly. Either way it’s ridiculous. Where are the bans for drug dealers, gang members and other repeat violent felons?

  Reply
  • tearfuleagle

    February 16, 2026

    EL, only the residency restrictions are October 2004. The Location restrictions is for everyone. Hotels, are on that list but they have narrowly tailed the verbiage, I am assuming to avoid litigation. It is the structure itself and the “Immediate surround area” <—– the last part is vague. Does it mean the pool deck surrounding the water feature. Inside the fenced area? the whole hotel itself? This is an issue. According to AI its would be inside the fenced area, pool deck, loungers, chairs, etc.

    Reply
    • Connie

      February 17, 2026

      Looks like SB 212 has passed. It is still confusing to me. I read the amendments and still do not know where that leaves a 1991 PFR.

      Reply
      • FAC Contributor #12

        February 17, 2026

        Passed committee only.

        Reply
        • tearfuleagle

          February 17, 2026

          Yes, Passed Committee. Connie, for 1991, the residency restrictions do not apply they start at 2004 when the original amendment to the FLSORNA passed. The presence restriction is for all. I do appreciate Senator Pizzo for clarifying the Hotel question and the bill’s sponsor clarified that they could still stay at the hotel just the pool area is off limits. I think Senator Davis asked a good question about individual assessment to which the bill sponsor side stepped.

          Here is what I am not hearing anyone talk about.
          1. The senator’s oath of office
          2. Address the Ex Post Facto clause in both the US and Florida Constitution
          3. The Recent Ellingburg decision setting the new Gold Standard concerning ex post facto laws.
          4. How Ellingburg and SB212 clash.

          Just my humble thoughts, not a lawyer and am just using a layman’s read of the hearing, the bill and the constitution.

          Reply
• Vic

  February 15, 2026

  One of the more interesting facts provided is that by the Florida Department of Corrections own numbers almost 13,000 people who have been convicted of a crime covered under this proposal are scheduled for release in the future. Now, to be sure, some of those are serving long sentences, but an that’s an incredible number and that doesn’t even include Federal prisoners who are schedule to be released, nor does it include those whose cases have not yet been adjudicated.

  This is a system that at some point will collapse under its own weight.

  Reply
• Robert

  February 14, 2026

  J.B. I think if you read it carefully it says hotels, etc with pools but the restricted area is in the general vicinity of the pool…not the entire hotel, etc.

  Likewise the definition of “park” says “…where children regularly congregate”. Many parks are not places where children regularly congregate.

  Reply
  • tearfuleagle

    February 14, 2026

    Here is the defining part of the bill for the proximity restriction.

    “………….. The term only includes the water feature and the immediate surrounding area of such
    water feature.”

    We know that “… the water feature…” means the actual pool, splash pad, hot tub, spa, etc. The massively vague part is. “And the immediate surrounding area of such water feature.” <—— What does that mean? The pool deck, the locker room attached to the pool? If at a hotel, does it mean the whole hotel or just the area around the pool i.e. pool deck, Inside the gated area as most pools are surrounded by a gate?

    That is of most importance for those who work at hotels, have events at hotels, attend gyms with pools etc. Your guess is as good as mine. My reading and I consider myself fairly educated would be the deck surrounding the pool, spa, hot tub, splash pad etc.: this would be "The immediate surrounding are of such water feature."

    Here is the AI definition: “Surrounding area” means the immediate, controlled space that is part of the pool facility. In plain English, it refers to the pool deck and the fenced‑in or designated area that belongs to the pool itself. Think: the concrete deck the chairs and loungers the gate area the fenced enclosure the splash pad zone the immediate walkway that is part of the pool facility

    It does NOT mean: the entire apartment complexes the entire hotel the entire park the entire campground the entire neighborhood the lake behind a house the beach shoreline the whole recreation center. The law is trying to say: “We’re talking about the pool and the area that is part of the pool facility — not the whole property.”

    Thoughts on this line of thought?

    Reply
• J.B.

  February 13, 2026

  More emails sent.

  While my immediate concern about losing housing has been relieved, I am still potentially finished professionally if this passes.

  98% of my freelance audiovisual production work for corporate conferences takes place in large venue hotels with convention space and ballrooms. Every one of those properties has at least one pool — most have two or more. Because hotel pools are not excluded, this would effectively eliminate my ability to legally work.

  I’ve been self-employed in this profession since 2018 with zero issues. I check in with hotel security, present my Florida ID, and work on private property. If I were a threat, that would have surfaced years ago. It hasn’t — because I’m not.

  In 2022, a vengeful couple in my industry publicly exposed my legal past in a professional Facebook group. After knowing me and working alongside me, nearly 200 colleagues saw through it. One confronted me, later apologized, and we continue to work professionally. My skills and conduct speak for themselves.

  Travel and residency restrictions have already limited my career. This would nearly end it. I contribute to the local economy and pay substantial federal income taxes. I’m not asking for special treatment — I’m asking for legislation that protects the public without destroying people who are following the rules and contributing to society.

  July 1 would be a professional cliff.

  I’ve fought hard just to work and provide. I’m not against public safety, but broad nets that don’t distinguish between actual threats and working professionals help no one.

  That other article about us “needing to really feel” being on the registry… yeah man, first thing that hits me in the morning and the last thing as I drift off to sleep, with sleep being the the only time I experience any peace at all, and that’s if I’m lucky enough to not have dreams/nightmares that involve all this and that’s at least 1-3 times a week. So, not sure how you could feel it any more than I already do…

  Reply
  • Robert Magana

    February 14, 2026

    I Feel your pain brother , I’m a small business owner as well and i was convicted @ 19 for having a baby with my 15 yo wife married 23 years now with adult kids. I think this specific revision applies to you and should be ease your mind look like you shouldn’t be affected.

    ••Revises the definition of “public swimming pool” in the residency restriction
    provision to include pools operated by a county, city, or municipality, but to exclude
    pools at a hotel, motel, or recreational vehicle park.

    • Deletes the restriction prohibiting an offender from being “within 200 feet” of certain
    areas and replaces the prohibition by stating that the offender may not be “on the
    premises” of those areas. The warrantless arrest provision is similarly revised.

    Reply