URGENT – HB 45 Call to Action – Act before Committee Meeting on Tuesday Feb 24

13 thoughts on “URGENT – HB 45 Call to Action – Act before Committee Meeting on Tuesday Feb 24”

• tearfuleagle

  February 23, 2026

  All Emails Sent. Here is what I hope those opposing the bill bring up.

  Chair, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak. My comments focus on one core issue: ensuring that Florida’s laws comply with the Constitution and reflect what decades of research actually show about sexual‑offense prevention.

  1. The Supreme Court’s Ellingburg decision changed the legal standard. In January, the Supreme Court issued Ellingburg v. United States, replacing the old Smith v. Doe framework. The Court held that when a law imposes real‑world burdens that resemble punishment, it cannot be applied retroactively. This is a constitutional requirement, not a policy preference.

  2. Florida’s current statutory scheme conflicts with Ellingburg. Florida’s registry laws have expanded repeatedly since 1997. These expansions — including reporting rules, residency restrictions, and penalties — are applied to people whose convictions predate those laws. Under Ellingburg, this is retroactive punishment, and therefore unconstitutional. Continuing to enforce these provisions exposes the state to litigation it is unlikely to win.

  3. Empirical research does not support the assumptions behind current policy Recidivism rates for people with sexual‑offense convictions are among the lowest of any offense category, consistently around 1% for new sexual offenses after release. The “stranger danger” narrative is a myth: over 90% of sexual offenses are committed by someone the victim knows, not by strangers on registries. Study after study shows that residency restrictions do not reduce sexual offenses and often make reintegration harder without improving safety. No peer‑reviewed research has found that public registries prevent sexual offending; most offenses are committed by individuals not on any registry.

  4. Florida has an opportunity to align its laws with both the Constitution and the evidence Prospective‑only laws — applied to new convictions — are fully constitutional and fully enforceable.
  Removing retroactive punishment does not weaken public safety; it strengthens the legal durability of the statute. A forward‑looking framework allows Florida to maintain a registry for new cases while respecting constitutional limits for older ones.

  5. A constitutional rewrite protects public safety and the state’s credibility Aligning the statute with Ellingburg avoids costly, repetitive litigation. It ensures that Florida’s laws remain enforceable rather than vulnerable to being struck down. It allows the state to focus resources on evidence‑based prevention strategies that actually reduce harm.

  Closing
  I urge the committee to consider a legislative solution that respects the Supreme Court’s ruling, reflects the empirical research, and ensures Florida’s laws remain both constitutional and effective. I urge you to vote NO on HB 45. Thank you for your time.

  Reply
• tearfuleagle

  February 22, 2026

  Started sending tonight left off at Cassell

  Reply
• RayO

  February 22, 2026

  My case was well before 2004, so the residency restriction does not affect me. However, I think I may live within 500 feet of a school. If so, due to the proximity increase from 300 to 500 feet, if I’m ‘loitering’ while sitting on my own front porch, I’d have to not communicate, even non-verbally, when one of the neighborhood kids comes to my house looking to mow my lawn or when one of the teens who occasionally walk in front of my house calls me a pervert again. I sure hope I’m never considered to be loitering while inside my own home.

  Thanks to all who have helped to reduce the impacts of these new bills!

  Reply
  • tearfuleagle

    February 22, 2026

    Ray,
    I think there is some confusion on the 500 foot rule added to the Loitering statute. Here is what that applies to:

    856.022 Loitering or prowling by certain offenders in close 85
    proximity to children; prohibition on contact or communication 86
    with children in certain locations

    I think the certain locations is then defined in

    Section 3: 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

    Section 4: It is unlawful for a person described in subsection (1) to knowingly approach, contact, or communicate with, or approach with the intent to contact or communicate with a person younger than child under 18 years of age in any public park, building or on real property comprising any public park, playground, or public swimming pool.
    This subsection does not prohibit a person from contacting, communicating with, or approaching with the intent to contact or communicate with, a person younger than 18 years of age if such person is his or her family or household member.

    Basically, the way I read this is no contact in any “public park, building or real property comprising any park, playground or public swimming pool. What I do not see here is cashiers at stores, waiter staff in restaurants, drive throughs. Etc.

    To me the keys are “places where children congregate: Pool, parks, playground, schools etc.” your front porch is not a place like that. But this is just me layman’s reading of SB212. I don’t see this in HB 45 unless i missed it.

    Reply
• B$

  February 21, 2026

  Can we get a copy/paste list of the emails? It looks like it goes through spam filers with a BCC

  Reply
  • Anonymous

    February 21, 2026

    In my experience anytime you email government sites any more than 1 email address at a time is sent to spam.

    Reply
• david

  February 21, 2026

  My neighbor brought up a great point. What happens if I go to the park with my grandson and family. Someone there recognizes me and has knowledge of HB 45 and SB 212. They send THEIR minor child over to talk to me all the while doing a video. What am I supposed to do? They submit the video to the SO and since it is a distance nothing can be heard…just the visual action.

  Reply
  • tearfuleagle

    February 21, 2026

    All, I mean I know it’s tough and I cannot say i know as my 1st grandson, is not even 1. However, we also cannot live in constant what ifs. If I know there is a chance I take him to the park and he is on the swing and another dad or mom come over and use the swing next me, you cannot avoid that scenario just don’t talk to the kid. Same thing with pools, spas, etc. Can we be there legally of course. Just avoid the contact. Most parents are not going to let their kid talk to a perfect stranger anyway. IDK.

    It is all absurd to me. I think I am going to change my name on here to “31yrsstillpaying”

    Reply
  • James

    February 22, 2026

    Quite frankly if you do not turn and walk away as the minor approaches you, you are screwed. It is very important to be hyper vigilant. I am actually considering getting a body camera just to aid in self defense.
    I will not take my grandchild to a park and I did not take my children to parks for this specific reason.

    Reply
• tearfuleagle

  February 21, 2026

  Here is a more personal one if it applies:

  Dear Representative,

  I am writing to you as a Florida constituent who believes deeply in the rule of law and in the constitutional obligations that guide your service. My concerns regarding HB 45 are not political—they are constitutional, structural, and directly tied to the oath every member of the Florida House swears to uphold.

  Under the Florida Oath of Office, you pledge to “support, protect, and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States and of the State of Florida.” That oath requires equal protection for all Floridians and a commitment to avoid enacting laws that violate either constitution.

  I want to be clear that I, too, take child safety with the utmost seriousness. I have raised three wonderful daughters in this great state, and I believe that protecting children is the bedrock of any healthy society. But that responsibility begins with parents and families. The duty to protect children should start at home—not through government overreach that violates constitutional boundaries.

  Both the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 10) and the Florida Constitution (Article I, Section 10) contain explicit prohibitions against ex post facto laws. These clauses forbid the State from imposing new punitive consequences based on past conduct.

  The 2026 Ellingburg v. United States decision by the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed and strengthened this standard. The Court held that when a law imposes retroactive burdens that function as punishment, it violates the Ex Post Facto Clause regardless of legislative intent. The ruling made clear that courts must evaluate the *effects* of a statute, not merely its stated purpose.

  HB 45 raises serious constitutional concerns under this framework. The bill imposes new, retroactive restrictions and penalties on individuals based solely on past conduct—restrictions that were not in place at the time of the original offense. Under Ellingburg, this type of retroactive expansion of consequences is precisely what the Court held to be unconstitutional.

  It is also important to emphasize that **adding new restrictions to an already enacted statute does not cure or avoid an ex post facto violation**. A retroactive burden remains retroactive, regardless of whether it is added through amendment or through a new standalone law. The constitutional prohibition applies to the effect of the law, not the legislative vehicle used to impose it.

  Passing legislation that conflicts with both state and federal constitutional protections places the State of Florida in legal jeopardy. It invites costly litigation, exposes the state to injunctions, and undermines public trust in the legislative process. Most importantly, it asks lawmakers to knowingly enact a statute that cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny.

  I respectfully urge you to uphold your oath of office and decline to support HB 45. Protecting the constitutional rights of all Floridians is not only your duty—it is the foundation of legitimate governance.

  Thank you for your time and for your service to our state.

  Sincerely,

  Reply
  • anonymous

    February 21, 2026

    Very well written.

    Reply
  • david

    February 21, 2026

    Absolutely fantastic letter. I am going to save it for later use.

    Reply