Would you be affected by House Bill 45 and Senate Bill 212? We break it down.

After posting yesterday’s Call to Action, we received a lot of comments (on our posts, in phone calls, and in email) from members who are confused as to whether House Bill 45 and Senate Bill 212 will apply to them. To try to simplify things, here’s how it breaks down:

HB 45 and Senate Bill 212 would ban certain people convicted of specified sexual offenses from living within 1,000 feet of public swimming pools or public bathing places. Whether the rule applies depends on when the underlying conviction happened and when the person moved into the house (or when the pool/bathing place was built).

Point 1: The bill targets (a) people convicted in Florida of qualifying offenses on or after October 1, 2004, and (b) people convicted in other jurisdictions of similar offenses on or after October 1, 2010. These people would now be prevented from residing within 1000 feet of a public swimming pool or public bathing places.

Point 2: The bill contains a key legal carve-out (which is the confusing part). If a person already lives somewhere and a new public pool/bathing place is built after they moved in, the bill says they would not be required to move. But if the person moved into a residence that was already within 1,000 feet of a pool/bathing place, the bill (as written) could put them in violation and force them to move or face penalties — even if they moved in years ago.

Here are a few hypothetical examples that will help you understand the bill:

“John” was convicted of a qualifying offense in 2003. John moved into his house in 2011. John’s house is within 1,000 ft of a public pool. John would not be in violation.
“Sam” was convicted of a qualifying offense in Florida in 2006. Sam moved into his house in 2011. Sam’s house is within 1,000 ft of an existing public pool built in 2009. Under the bills as written, Sam would be in violation and could be forced to move.
“Tom” was convicted of a qualifying offense in Florida in 2008. Tom moved into his house in 2011. A public pool was built next door in 2015. Under the bills as written, Tom would not be required to move, because the pool was built after he established residence.
“Louis” was convicted in another state in 2009 (a qualifying offense). Out-of-state convictions count only if after October 1, 2010, so Louis would be excluded from the bills’ restrictions.
“Fred” was convicted in another state in 2011 (a qualifying offense). Fred moved into his house in 2020. Fred’s house is within 1,000 ft of an existing public pool built in 2009. Under the bills as written, Fred would be in violation and could be forced to move.
“Ted” was convicted in another state in 2011 (a qualifying offense). Ted moved into his house in 2020. Ted’s house is within 1,000 ft of an existing public pool built in 2021. Under the bills as written, Ted would not be required to move, because the pool was built after he established residence.

The bills treat the timing of both the conviction and the pool/bathing-place as crucial. This creates two very different results depending on those two dates.