Florida Lawsuit Challenges Continued Registration of Non-Residents and Deceased Persons

Source: ACSOL

A lawsuit was filed in a Florida federal district court today that challenges the continued registration of non-residents and deceased persons convicted of a sex offense.  According to the lawsuit, the Florida registry currently includes more than 28,000 people who do not live in that state as well as more than 1,300 people who are dead.

The plaintiff in this lawsuit was convicted of having sex with a minor (17-year-old woman) who he later married and together they had a child.  After the couple divorced, the plaintiff was awarded custody of the child who is now 12 years old.  The plaintiff permanently left the state of Florida about four years ago and does not plan to return.

Continued registration on the Florida registry has resulted in a significant lack of employment opportunities commensurate with the plaintiff’s education and training, according to the lawsuit.  The plaintiff is also concerned that his child will discover on the internet that he is listed on the Florida registry.

The lawsuit asserts two legal claims — violation of plaintiff’s right of substantive due process provided in both the state and federal constitutions as well as violation of the state privacy laws.  The plaintiff has asked the court to permanently restrain and enjoin the state of Florida from continuing Plaintiff’s sex offender registration and disseminating his personal information to the public.

Download a PDF:

Marcoux v. Swearingen – FL – out of state and dead persons – July 2021

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. 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 please expand it for new people to better understand.
  18. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  19. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  20. 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.
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.  
 

31 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I thought I read months ago there was another lawsuit challenging this in Florida already? Or is this that lawsuit and it’s finally going forward?

Wait! Someone is trying to introduce logic into Florida Politics? Good luck with that!
I think instead of trying to eliminate the registry in its current iteration, why aren’t we offering to keep it, but as a secured L.E. data base for everyone except people who have been labeled “SVP”, which could still be public.
That would appease the public’s thirst for information about potentially harmful people while at the same time allowing law enforcement to say they are honestly keeping track of registrants.
Job opportunities, housing, and individual rights would open up, and cases of recidivism would decrease even farther. I bet if it were done in the same quiet way that the IML and other SORNA laws are introduced, most wouldn’t even notice it. Most people don’t even know all the absurd restrictions placed on us. They just know ‘person listed on the registry living close’ and panic.
Florida is a lost cause when it comes to ANY person with a felony conviction’s civil rights. But the rest of the country still can be saved. We need to stop trying to take such a big bite out of the apple.

I never understood them leaving people on their list who are deceased or no longer living there. Isn’t the purpose of Megan’s Law to inform your surrounding neighbors so they have the opportunity to “protect themselves” against you? It’s quite obvious that Florida has other intentions with it. I don’t see how this hasn’t already been ordered to stop doing it.

Kind of surprised they were able to reside in Canada with their strict rules

Before the tiered registry here in CAi, I use to tell my family that when I die, do what they can to get my name off the web. I feel I would be ridiculed even in death as long as my profile remained after my demise. As soon as my name was off…then I could rest in peace.

Does a state have any real interest in protecting citizens from threats not presently at hand?

Keeping dead people on the government-sponsored “Megan’s Law” hit list? Man, oh man, this country is the biggest joke there is. So much of a joke that I’m probably going to take the American flag off my front porch soon.

No point flying the flag of a country that sponsors the Megan’s Law Hit List for its tax-paying citizens.

Follow the money!

I’m not so sure a dead person can file a complaint. I’m not sure on what grounds a complaint could survive other than it violates them term designation as a ” life term ” within the law. Obviously, no one benefits from a broadcast of a dead man’s whereabouts except for the collective itself. Our FBI, Finger print database AFIS is full of deceased people’s prints. Same goes for DNA databases. Collections for collection sake is a hallmark of bloated unwieldy institutions.

This case is interesting in a tangent to a dismissed case. In both instances, the courts deem their information no longer useable. Why is unusable information still being utilized as live information by the state registry?

CA’s PC 1203.4 specifically states, “the court shall thereupon dismiss the accusations or information against the defendant.”