FAC: Florida homeless registrants lose appeal against Miami-Dade

[floridaactioncommittee.org – 9/9/20]

Sadly, the homeless registrants in Miami-Dade lost their appeal to the 11th Circuit in a decision returned today.

The loss was on a technicality – whether the suit can be construed as an “as applied” challenge vs. a “facial challenge”. The 11th circuit’s decision was that the plaintiffs didn’t bring their case “as applied” to the John Doe plaintiffs from the get-go and therefore the Defendants didn’t have a fair chance to defend accordingly.

Read the full article


Related posts

Notify of

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


  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. 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.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. 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.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. 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.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. 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.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. 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.
  23. 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.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

It should be worthy of either. I guess it will take another x amount of years for relief, SMH…

Is the 11th circuit and district courts made up of mentally challenged individuals? “including unrefuted evidence that a significant percentage of sex
offenders find residency restrictions helpful in preventing them from reoffending.” What?!? What sex offenders where have said this much less a significant amount of them?

@ M C


Pages 10-16. The District Court heard evidence from both sides and decided to believe the state’s expert witness, who tore down our studies as widely variable and unreliable, including rebutting testimony from Jill Levenson, and stated that sex offense policy should be grounded on “common sense” policy decisions. They cited a study in North Carolina stating that a survey of offenders found the residency restrictions helped them with urges. The Court basically refuted all our evidence and accepted the state’s evidence.

Also, one of the Does in the case on cross-examination admitted that the restrictions helped him with urges. The Court summed that the particular Doe had no reason to lie in the affirmative, as they were challenging the law; but, that the other Does had motivation to downplay the effectiveness of the law. Essentially, because one says its beneficial, it is beneficial for all and the rest of us would lie anyways to have access to children.

@JohnDoeUtah, so you are saying they double dipped. They want to use common sense over research when the research doesn’t match what they want to do but then use a bs research study to claim registrants actually think this helps them even though common sense would say that nobody wants to be homeless. Yep that makes sense!

Instead of using an expert in sex offense laws in their own backyard; the court relied on a study out of North Carolina. I swear the stupidity in Florida is frightening when it comes to courts. Bought and paid for by Ron DUI Book and his daughter Lauren Barbie Victim Book!!

This is what I find so GD infuriating. In light of this ruling – per this individual’s admission – it reinforces the myth that ALL those forced to register have incurable and uncontrollable pathologically deviant “urges.”

The registry then becomes a form of false imprisonment and blatant injustice for those that pose zero threat to society, much less children.

Example …
If you ask a person addicted to anything and say if we give you this or that help will they say yeas it helps …yes !! Because they have been told they neeeeed HelllllP…also they are desperate ….should this be used in a court of law to keep them in LEGAL BONDAGE …Nooooo !
Now, that you found out what i already knew,,,,which is the people who oppose or refute the positive statistics with there own lies or Skewed perception or oppressive agenda…thd next question is HOW HAVE GOOD/BAD STATISTICS, TRUTHS, SURVEYS AND FACTS ETC…worked in favor of OUR SUCCESS or others in HISTORY ???
Thanks for reading and look forward to this sight and others Moving in a different way …such as never allowing a Guilt Trip or emphasis on crimes when talking to people who want to destroy lives and have alllll SAY SO !!!
STOP EVEN MENTIONING THEY VICTIMS …In any way form or fashion…thats personal…This is Business !!!
Thanks ……

This surprises you? The more opnions I read, the more it seems like the courts are bending over backwards to support registration.
I think we all need to continue to work on public opnion and find comparisons to other rights that risk being removed if ours are. Like our registry and how it could be used against gun owners if applied to them.