FL: Ex Post Facto Lawsuit Filed (FAC)

A lawsuit was filed in Federal Court challenging the Florida Sex Offender registry. The suit is a facial challenge, filed on behalf of persons required to register in the State of Florida.

It argues that the registry violates the Ex Post Facto clause of the constitution, constitutes Cruel and Unusual Punishment, violates Procedural Due Process, violates Substantive Due Process, is unconstitutionally Vague, has no rational relationship to its purpose and asks the Court to permanently restrain and enjoin the FDLE from enforcing the registration statute. More from Florida Action Committee

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

 

  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  4. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Use person-first language.
  5. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  6. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  7. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  8. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  9. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address that are not personally identifiable.
  10. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  11. Please do not post in all Caps.
  12. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  13. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  14. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  15. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  16. Please do not solicit funds
  17. No discussions about weapons
  18. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  19. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  20. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  21. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  22. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

33 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Wow, that is a large law suit. It seems as if everything is being challenged. This will be in court for years. It does raise many good points.

Damn! They are challenging every single possible violation under one umbrella. That’s awesome !!! I hope they pull through with a win when it comes down to it. My best wishes to FAC, the attorneys involve and the RCs in FL.

Well, this is a big one we’ve all been waiting for. I just hope it doesn’t get shut down as hard as CA’s lawsuit against the passport mark.

This will determine if the case goes to the Supreme Court to be honest. If the court says as we hope, other states will disagree. That will pretty much guarantee sometime the SC will have to hear it. I think attorneys should present the idea that a person can simply just google a name and it pop up without wanting to find that information. They must see that only a small percent reoffend and that it does hinder our own pursuit of happiness.
It does put families in vulnerable positions and hurts us being a contributing member of society. Third parties will continue to blast old information.

Note to FAC: your Declarations for Does 2 – 5 have a recurring typo. Every Declaration starts with, “My name is John Doe 1.” While correct for John Doe 1, it’s wrong thereafter. Ooops.

That place is harsh. I guess I will never get the chance to go to Disney World in my lifetime.

Wow! They threw everything but the kitchen sink into this one!!! I pray the plaintiffs win.

You would think this would be a big deal for everyone who participates in this blog no?

I think Janice et ell should perform the same suit here. If the registry is going to come down, it has to be gang tackled along with the Gundy suit to be decided by SCOTUS.

Agree. RE: Gundy is limited. The AG shouldn’t be allowed to determine who gets punishment and who doesn’t (yet basically that is how it works at the county level), but neither should the Congress decide a group of former offenders should be punished after the fact, simply because they have a common conviction type. That, I think is where the evil springs.

Has anyone thought of adding a challenge on the grounds that sex offenders are required to pay taxes to support resources they cannot use? For example, using buildings (public libraries, parks, swimming pools, YMCA), or attending events supported or funded by tax dollars such as (county fairs) which most times have so many restrictive rules or requirements that you cannot overcome them (i.e. – get written permission from the library administrator to use the library, or written permission from the school principal to attend my children’s school games – which would NEVER be granted) or that legislation has made “illegal” to even attend or be at (county fairs, parks, public pool, etc… ). Why should they have to pay taxes for things that are illegal for them to attend or so onerous to make happen that it become too difficult to accomplish? Just a thought.