Dear Senator,

I am writing to respectfully urge you to vote NO on SB 212. As a member of the Florida Legislature, you have sworn the constitutionally required Oath of Office to “support, protect, and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States and of the State of Florida” and to faithfully perform the duties of your office. That oath is not ceremonial—it is a binding constitutional obligation.

Both the U.S. Constitution and the Florida Constitution contain explicit prohibitions against ex post facto laws. Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution states that no state may pass any ex post facto law. Likewise, Article I, Section 10 of the Florida Constitution contains the same prohibition. These clauses exist to prevent the government from retroactively imposing new punitive burdens on individuals after the fact.

In 2026, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Ellingburg v. United States, which clarified and strengthened the modern standard for determining when a law is punitive for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause. The Court held that when a statute imposes coercive, state-enforced obligations tied to a past conviction, courts must evaluate the real-world effects of those obligations—not the labels applied by the legislature. If the effects are punitive, the law cannot be applied retroactively.

SB 212 conflicts directly with this binding precedent. The bill imposes new, mandatory, state-enforced restrictions and obligations on individuals based solely on past convictions, including those whose convictions predate the bill. These requirements are substantial, coercive, and unrelated to current conduct. Under the Ellingburg standard, these effects are punitive in nature. As such, applying them retroactively would violate both the U.S. and Florida Constitutions.

For these reasons, and in keeping with the oath you have sworn to uphold, I respectfully ask you to oppose SB 212.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

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.)

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

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.

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.

Passed committee only.

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.