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.

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.

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.

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

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

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”

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