in 2019, the Florida Legislature passed a Bill sponsored by Senator Lauren Book (SB 540) that was titled “Human Trafficking”.
In the Bill Analysis, the sponsor stated, “Human trafficking is a form of modern–day slavery. Young children, teenagers, and adults are all victims of human trafficking, who are subjected to force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose of sexual exploitation or forced labor…Human trafficking is the third-largest international crime industry, generating a profit of an estimated $32 billion every year. In 2016, there were an estimated 40.3 million victims of human trafficking…. Florida ranks third in the nation for reported cases of human trafficking.”
The Bill passed and was signed into law, creating Florida Statute 943.0433, the “Solicitation for Prostitution Registry”. Individuals who committed the offense(s) on or after January 1, 2021 and are convicted (regardless of adjudication) on or after January 1, 2021 are currently being placed on the Soliciting for Prostitution Public Database.
So far there are none.
You can find the list here: http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/SFPDB.aspx
The Daily Mail reports that the Solicitation for Prostitution Database has been taken down.
(h/t: ACSOL)
And also the animal abuse registry We’re not retro.
Does it help at all with the ex post facto case that they did not write it as “Convicted on or after or still serving sanctions” but rather convicted on or after Jan 2021?
But there HAVE been arrests for soliciting prostitution!!:
https://spacecoastdaily.com/2021/03/melbourne-police-special-investigation-unit-arrests-three-after-street-level-prostitution-sweep/
And more arrests!:
https://www.wjhg.com/2021/03/22/18-arrested-in-panama-city-police-reverse-prostitution-operation/
And more!!:
https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/full-circle/human-trafficking-operations-surrounding-the-super-bowl-result-in-dozens-of-arrests-for-prostitution
But there’s no one on Book’s Prostitution Registry?? 🤔🤷🏻♂️
David
Um, maybe that is because if they are put on that registry, those arrested may spill the beans on all the married judges, cops, business men, teachers, congressmen, clergy etc that have secretly used their “Services”.
So the arrestees, if convicted, will be placed on the solicitation registry.
When I turned 16 I studied the state driving license regulations book, I familiarized my self with the car I would use so I could pass the driving test . Though I was nervous I managed to ace the written test and driving test paid for my insurance so I could legally comply with all regulations to possess a drivers , which I did.
Do they put used drugs on anyone license, how about shop lifted, how about battery, how about DUI which I could see possibly having a reason for. What in hell does registry violations have to do with driving a car. Does it make one less capable of being a safe driver.
What is a drivers license for anyway? What are they thinking?
I’m sure a lot of people of people who regularly check ID’s know. DR Offices, gyms, hospitals, etc when they see that number.
I have never understood the relationship between a drivers license and an indication of RSO on the license. What does driving have to do with being an RSO? Does Florida fear an RSO is going to molest a car?
Capt
Yes and a point. For now, mine just has the statue # and no one so far but one cop has asked me what it means.
I know some have predator stamped on theirs. You have to give your license to doctors offices, libraries, check cashing places, the bank and many other places.
Imagine the “Special” treatment you will get in the hospital when they find out. I am not even listed as predator but the hospital staff still treated me almost to death. My report and complaints fell on deaf ears and were never followed up on. Instead I was sent to collections even though I had not missed a single payment.
I have ‘predator’ on my license even though I was not considered a predator in Virginia where I had my failure. The victim, my daughter, and I have long ago reconciled and she and her family have moved to just a few miles from me and we are in frequent contact. We let bygones be bygones a long time ago. She understood that what happened was out of character for me and the depression I was going through at the time. Within a few weeks of arriving in Florida I was before a judge who was clueless about my background and the situation I had gone through as he declared me a ‘predator’. The registry in Florida had me charged with ‘crimes’ I had never been charged with I Virginia. My counselor even told the judge that I was not a predator. I remember one time when I took a poly and as a result I was accused of trying to ‘groom’ someone in my church. I took out a $100 bill and laid it on the table and told the polygrapher and my counselor if they could come up with one name in six months the $100 was theirs. Of course they couldn’t and got angry that I challenged their ‘professionalism’…and their false charge. People who know me know that such a charge is BS. They also know that I will not hesitate to speak up. I am more of a ‘vinegar’ man than a ‘honey’ man. I just grin and bare it until the bureaucracy of Florida wakes up. I was released from probation 11 years early yet I am still a ‘predator’.
Why don’t you sue? For 1 it’s already won challenges they do not have the right to make you speak. 2 predator is ambiguous and means your actively praying and should produce those fact or the term is cruel and unusual where they are making up things about you sounds libel to me.
The crime and the conviction have to both occur after 1/1/2021. Considering the pace at which court cases are heard in Florida, the FDLE website is probably correct, “At this time, no individuals have met the criteria for inclusion on the database”. It has only been in effect 90 days. Finally, those who have taken a plea deal, have probably had the charge reduced to something that doesn’t trigger this law.
I find it interesting they don’t have to keep their information up to date and they automatically get off in 5 years probably from the time the crime was committed, not from the date they finish their sentence.
Alan
I think you just brought up a point that could be used in our favor. Is this not discriminatory against us? I mean if the registry is constitutional, why does a registry for prostitution only last 5 years , why can you plea down to stay off it, and why was this NOT added retroactively like ours was???????
FAC time to get the lawyers in the Ex post Facto to use this example. I think this is the golden egg. If not punishment, why is ours 100X harsher than the prostitution registry? A prostitute is probably more likely to re-offend than us because they are getting paid to do it and that is their livelyhood.
When I worked in law enforcement, we arrested the same girls(And some guys) for being hookers sometimes hours after we just arrested them. They would get let out on a $50 bond and be back out working the streets during our same shift. The first time I saw that I thought the gal had escaped from custody LOL
It is the John’s that will end up on this registry, not the prostitutes.
Guess they figured that too many policemen would end up on the list and we all know that they watch out for their brothers in blue…
Easier just to ignore that list and concentrate on the easy one – AKA – the Sex Offender Registry and just violating those already on it with useless rules designed to make conforming to them nearly impossible!
Like shooting fish in a barrel
Isn’t it hilarious that when certain politicians are met with the idea of OTHER types of “identifiers” that they suddenly don’t like such an idea? If Gov DeSantis can say “gimme a break” about vaccine identifiers on passports, why didn’t he say the same about sex offender identifiers on drivers licenses? Especially when the offender is no longer on any probation or parole?
I have issues with both political parties. And I wish I was an attorney because I’d rip both sides a new one with their never ending hypocrisy.
So I sure as hell hope issue like this can be added to the arguments in FAC’s lawsuits. Don’t let these opportunities pass by.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/03/give-break-fl-gov-desantis-says-taking-executive-action-vaccine-passports-video/
Maestro
WELL don’t give DeSantis too much push back because you might just give him the bright idea to make Sex offender passports we have to show everywhere we go. I am not talking about the overseas passports. I am talking about some sort of ID you have to carry at all times that is specifically made just for those on the registry.
If you travel to another jurisdiction you have to stop at the local law enforcement location to get it stamped showing where you arrived in their city and when you departed. We laugh and scoff at such things but we already have a scarlet letter on our Drivers licenses.
On a hilarious note, I got pulled over recently for going through a red light (It was yellow as I sped up to make it lol) The deputy asked me what the numbers were for on the bottom of my driver’s license. I said I had no idea (Playing dumb). After running my information, when he came back to my driver’s window, he said “Oh now I know what those #’s mean” . Oddly enough, I did NOT get a ticket but told to slow down.
I hate to use this correlation but the individual being stopped to offer an official his/her “papers” was affectively used by the Nazis. We all know how that ended for so many. Just saying.
AL in Jax
I agree on all points. Accept those people did nothing wrong other that the Sickos hating them because they were Jews. The allied forces saved them , maybe FAC is our allied forces? No one else seems to care to shits about us .
I’ve wondered for some time how FL, AL, and MS (and I’m sure others) get away with the marking on DLs and IDs. It’s already been found to be compelled speech in an AL Federal Court–and went unchallenged by the State. For some reason, the plaintiffs agreed to settle with some other indicator beyond bold-red “SEX OFFENDER” on the front. I say even the little phrases or codes used are unconstitutional compelled speech. It is hardly the least restrictive means to have it on the front (or at all, IMO); force it onto the back of the ID/DL where nobody but a LEO would look.
Furthermore, part of the rationale SCOTUS used about the registries in general was the information it provides (offense, date and place of conviction, etc.) allows the citizen to determine for themselves whether the RC is a threat or not. An indicator on a DL/ID does not provide the citizen with that insight or ability to judge dangerousness, thus it would seem overbroad, at best.
Also, SCOTUS also held that the registry was akin to the electronic version of someone going to view “mostly public” (gee, thanks SCOTUS for not caring about the stuff that’s NOT public) information and records. SCOTUS explicitly stated the citizen must affirmatively seek the information, even if it’s only via some clicks of a mouse. That’s hardly the case anymore in general and absolutely not the case when it comes to marked DLs/IDs. There is zero SCOTUS-level case law saying marked IDs/DLs are allowed as it pertains to registrants.
Finally, I’ve also wondered if there’s any traction regarding the chilling effect having a marked ID/DL has on one’s right to Freedom of Travel. In Saenz v. Roe, SCOTUS found that discriminatory classification itself (marked ID/DL, anyone?) is a penalty, i.e burdens the fundamental right to travel. In a Federal District case out of Indiana (Hope v. IN) the court noted:
Ok, I’m off my ranting soap box.
Be well, friends!
@AJ
Yet, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals said it was ok for OK (Oklahoma) to have marked DLs (https://narsol.org/2017/11/tenth-circuit-coa-upholds-oklahoma-drivers-license-requirement/) which in reality is not ok overall.
I agree with all of your thinking and rationale above and would like to see this really get challenged at SCOTUS to get them to think about the matter at hand on marked DLs and the registry.
@TS:
In Carney v. OK, the Plaintiff screwed up by not making a timely First Amendment claim. Appearing pro se at the District level, Carney sued claiming Eighth and Fourteenth violations. It was only after the District decision that Carney tossed in the First Amendment claim–which the 10th Circuit properly ignored. From the Circuit’s decision:
His appellate attorney tried to get it included under the claim that as a pro se litigant, Carney wasn’t well-versed in court matters and suits. The 10th, again correctly, pointed out that Carney’s Eighth and Fourteenth arguments “were always clear and organized”, thus destroying the ignorant rube argument.
IMO, had Carney made, or sued again for, the Compelled Speech argument, he would have had a much different and better outcome. Eighth claims are always a steep climb and Fourteenth arguments too often seem easy for a determined judiciary to ignore or dilute.
@AJ
I remember now those points from another discussion I had on that case back when. Too bad he has not sued again in Western Dist for OK the 1st Amdt infraction using the AL case as a foundation in addition to others which could be used.
AL Federal ct UPHELD the way FL brands licenses but ruled AL’s scheme unconditional.
MS is out of circuit, as is OK of course.
Specifically, the court ruled that you cannot brand “SEX OFFENDER” uniformly on every registrant’s license, as AL was doing, but speculated that FL’s scheme would be constitutional. They recognized that FL’s license brand was a discreet code, with more explicit language reserved for a smaller subset of the registrant population.
Neither side (state nor registrant) contested this ruling in the circuit court of appeals.
You have to wonder if AL saw the writing (no pun intended) on the case as is for that circuit and thought it did not want to spread the victory around to GA and FL in the 11th CCoA using those DL moniker words, if the 11th CCoA would’ve ruled similarly.
Had they done so, then there would have been a difference with the 10th CCoA (where OK resides) and setting up a SCOTUS challenge on compelled speech by a gov’t on a person regardless if it was wording and/or possibly code (if included but would’ve been hard pressed to stay in the case since it was not part of the original complaint IIRC). If it rules coding is ok, but straight out verbiage is not, then that opens a whole can of worms against people where codes are acceptable.
@Jacob:
Unless we’re talking about different lawsuits, the AL case was never appealed to the 11th. The State took its beating and went home licking its wounds. I agree with @TS’s speculation that AL, either on its own or through peer pressure, opted against spreading the effect of the lawsuit across the Circuit. I don’t see that as a big hindrance, though, because the case-law is clear, as that judge laid out quite well.
I don’t know the circumstances of the FL decision regarding marked licenses and IDs. Was it Federal court, or was it the State system where Drunken Ron has his fingers on every scale? I’d like to see the rationale supporting the idea that a marked ID/DL is the least restrictive means available to the State. IMO, the least restrictive means is the one they already have: the SO Registry. At any rate, if someone will post a URL for the case, I’d enjoy reading it.
An attack in MS would be about as tough as one in the 11th, if not harder, because the 5th is one seriously arch-conservative judiciary. IMO, I think even in the 5th a Compelled Speech suit could win because that case law is so deep and well-understood. Heck, the 5th itself helped clarify it with the Walker v. Tex. Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans decision that SCOTUS later reversed. That case, along with Wooley v. Maynard, NIFLA v. Becerra, and Riley v. Nat’l Fed’n of the Blind, all play to our favor.
I’m pretty sure Doe v. Marshall ended in the Alabama District Court.
In Doe v Marshall, AL Fed district ct speculated that FLORIDA’s driver’s license-branding scheme would survive constitutional scrutiny. The court distinguished Florida’s from Alabama’s.
That’s why I would caution ppl against viewing this case as persuasive against Florida’s own license-branding scheme. The case does no such thing.
The judge in Does v. Marshall appears to have missed the base issue about the marked DL/ID. It’s not how prominent or easily decoded the marking (i.e. speech) is, it’s the mere existence of it. In Wooley, SCOTUS didn’t say NH needed to put the slogan in smaller font; it said the mere presence of the slogan (speech) was a Compelled Speech violation. There’s no difference between the NH license plate and a FL/OK/AL/MS driver’s license…except the DL is actually more attached to the holder than the vehicle with the offending plate!
I guess this AL judge would find being forced to scream a message with which one disagrees to be unconstitutional, but speaking it at conversation level or whispering it would be constitutional.
I was and am still surprised the Plaintiffs let this particular decision lie. It doesn’t matter the type or form of the Compelled Speech, it’s still compelled. I would even go further and say it doesn’t even matter if there’s anyone who “hears” the Speech or is able to decode the single-letter indicator. Hearing speech is another, distinct aspect of Free Speech. THAT is where the violation occurs, not in how easily it’s understood by the “listener.”
Beyond all that, the judge apparently thinks the only way LEOs can determine whether someone is a RC is by looking at the indicator on the DL/ID. Never mind the LEO will have that info at hand when the person’s info is run in the computer. But I guess the 30 or so seconds it takes the LEO to walk from one car to another is crucial time in which the LEO must be made aware of one’s RC status. That’s absolute rubbish. Again, the least restrictive means of LEO gaining that information is their computer and/or the public registry. Period.
I agree, Jacob, that Does v. Marshall isn’t the end-all-be-all case to use regarding marked DLs/IDs but I do see it as a good foot in the door. The way to get the door the rest of the way is to answer the deeper question the judge never addressed (or didn’t want to address?).
Coded or not coded, I have said and believe all along, anything that is related to people forced to register having markings on their DLs/IDs (or anywhere for that matter) is gov’t compelled speech on a matter that is not of anyone’s business. As @AJ says, the existence of it is wrong.
The Constitutional principle is compelled speech, not gov’t speech which is ok via coded/not coded text because it is benefits public safety more than it does the person’s safety or some other legal test which creates a loophole for the gov’t to exploit when it comes to marking DLs/IDs.
As I look at my DL in ref to this discussion, the usual data is there which is pertinent for LE to know in a reading of it at that time as well as the grocery store clerk. Anything else can be found in the barcode on the back when scanned or in the system when they query it.
Since people are being encouraged to ID themselves today in ways they feel comfortable (or believe they are), then people should be able to NOT ID themselves in ways the gov’t feels they should be. It is a two-way street. In today’s atmosphere, this is going to get a lot more attention in the courts when it comes to IDing oneself and what is compelled to be stated on gov’t docs.
Hi Maestro, I think you make an excellent point regarding DeSantis’ position against vaccine passports versus his apparent position in favor of SO identifiers on Florida drivers licenses. He railed on and on about the privacy issues surrounding vaccine passports. But the same privacy concerns are attributed to the SO identifiers. Maybe FAC/members can write a letter to the Governor about it. Or better yet, issue a public statement to news media
Someone’s gotta do something and fast! We all know the uproar there would be if there was legislation that requires ANY crime to be made public on an ID card/passport. There would be outcries from the liberals saying it’s “racist” and the conservatives saying “but forgiveness”!
Ok, so time to throw it right back in their faces.
I have found that writing a letter to Governor DeSantis is pretty much a waste of $.55. He can do what he wants to do and not do what he doesn’t want to do. He is surrounded with staff to make excuses for him. I have been a Republican all my life but the Democrat position of DeSantis wanting to suppress voting rights is becoming more plausible.
Go Independent, it’s better. Both sides don’t like us.
And it may seem like a waste of 55 cents but if every registrant (who had the ability to) along with at least 1 of their close relations spared the 55 cents, it wouldn’t be so easy for him to ignore.
Maybe people with teenagers on the registry should send in a photo of their kid and ask him “Aren’t these the people you want to protect, though?”
Imagine how much easier it will be for pimps to find clients with this list. When the list gets larger, they will have to scour the college campuses for new women. This is how the list will really be used.
Where are the liberals with their “sex work is the oldest type of work in history”, and “don’t slut shame”?
Why does a Democrat like Lauren Book make assumptions that every prostitute is “trafficked”?
Why – because it fits her agenda and her agenda allows her to live a quite nice lifestyle while doing nothing productive – just spreading misinformation AKA boldfaced lies!
In countries where sex work is legal (yes prostitution) the workers are given health care and are not forced to into dangerous back alleys where they risk their lives!
Here is a list of the countries where prostitution (limited or unlimited) IS legal:
Prostitution Status 2021
Iceland Limitedly legal
Armenia Limitedly legal
Ireland Limitedly legal
Norway Limitedly legal
Sweden Limitedly legal
Australia Limitedly legal
Malaysia Limitedly legal
Canada Limitedly legal
France Limitedly legal
United Kingdom Limitedly legal
Japan Limitedly legal
United States Limitedly legal
Belize Legal
Malta Legal
Luxembourg Legal
Cyprus Legal
Estonia Legal
Latvia Legal
Slovenia Legal
Uruguay Legal
Panama Legal
New Zealand Legal
Costa Rica Legal
Slovakia Legal
Finland Legal
Denmark Legal
Singapore Legal
El Salvador Legal
Kyrgyzstan Legal
Nicaragua Legal
Bulgaria Legal
Paraguay Legal
Switzerland Legal
Israel Legal
Austria Legal
Hungary Legal
Honduras Legal
Portugal Legal
Greece Legal
Czech Republic Legal
Dominican Republic Legal
Cuba Legal
Belgium Legal
Bolivia Legal
Netherlands Legal
Senegal Legal
Ecuador Legal
Guatemala Legal
Chile Legal
Venezuela Legal
Peru Legal
Poland Legal
Argentina Legal
Spain Legal
Colombia Legal
Kenya Legal
Italy Legal
Germany Legal
Turkey Legal
Ethiopia Legal
Mexico Legal
Bangladesh Legal
Brazil Legal
Indonesia Legal
India Legal
Seems that most of the world has little if any problem with sex work
On or after, the only one written correctly
Mark
Yeah the holy grail of “On or after” would have kept me off the registry IF worded for your arrest and conviction and not when you got off probation. Retroactive BS illegal sickness and unconstitutional flim flamming.
You got that right Capt Charles Munsey Jr. USN Ret. Worked in local government and “rub & tug” was a regular thing & joked about around the water cooler. Of course I never participated in such horrific conduct. That would have made me a human trafficker also. Their stories were funny though. And the money they spent? Whew. A lot!!!!!
Got that right! Congressmen and Legislators. Why initiate it if they themselves may end up on it one day?
Must be affected by covid-19 restrictions. Everybody is keeping 6′ distance. All prostitutes are on self quarantine.
Since there is not a single person on it, God help the poor soul who becomes the first one added to it. Not an accepted way to become famous.
Having said that, most people don’t give two thoughts about prostitutes unless they are doing it in their neighborhood. But change the name to a scary sex offender and all Hell breaks out.
Could it be that there numbers are highly over stated. Or possibly just made up all together. Imagine that.
But just think of all the money that was made fabricating the skeem.
Too many politicians did not want to be on a registry.