Source: floridapolitics.com 8/18/25
The case arose after a sexual predator was sent back to prison after his probation officer found a smiley-face sticker covering the label on his license.
Florida can continue branding convicted sexual predators on their driver’s licenses.
In a divided ruling, the 5th District Court of Appeal has upheld the constitutionality of requiring state-issued driver’s licenses and ID cards to have “SEXUAL PREDATOR” stamped on them if the holder has been convicted of such a crime.
The ruling reverses an earlier panel’s action striking down the law as unconstitutional compelled speech.
In a 31-page opinion issued Friday, Judge Jordan Pratt wrote that the designation represents the state’s message, not the individual’s, and does not force offenders to “publicly display or disseminate the message” beyond ordinary license checks.
By marking a license, a “personal identification card normally hidden from public view,” Pratt reasoned, the state does not cross a line into unconstitutional compelled speech.
“Any reasonable observer will understand that it’s the State’s message that Crist is a sexual predator, just as it’s the State’s message that he is licensed to drive in Florida and has a certain ‘date of birth, height, weight, or eye color,’” Pratt wrote.
“And by marking Crist’s license … rather than his front yard, office entrance, business advertisements, personal vehicle, or custom website, the State has not compelled Crist to publicly display or disseminate its message.”
The challenge to Florida’s sexual predator ID marking was brought by …
If any state uses a status box—especially one that brands individuals with stigmatizing labels like “SEXUAL PREDATOR”—then it must follow the same administrative rules that govern all classifications: uniformity, reviewability, and legitimate purpose. Selective branding on one form but not others is a misuse of government instruments, regardless of the state.
If the state insists on using “predator status” as a classification—akin to race, disability, or residency—then it must be implemented uniformly across all government forms that utilize status boxes. This includes identification documents, employment applications, housing forms, benefit eligibility paperwork, and any other administrative instruments. Selective placement on a single form, such as a driver’s license, without corresponding inclusion elsewhere, violates the principles of administrative neutrality and Equal Protection.
Moreover, when such a designation is used only where it stigmatizes and not where it informs, it ceases to function as a lawful classification and instead becomes a personal notation—expressive, punitive, and in violation of the Personal Use Doctrine embedded in the Privacy Act of 1974, which prohibits government agencies from collecting or displaying personal information unless it serves a legitimate, reviewable administrative function. Government forms are not vehicles for personal commentary or branding; they are regulated instruments of classification, subject to strict standards of necessity, relevance, and uniformity.
This principle is reinforced by federal and state classification standards, including those from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, the North Carolina Office of State Human Resources, and the Illinois Department of Central Management Services, which require that classifications be uniformly applied, reviewable, and tied to legitimate administrative functions. When the state deviates from these standards to impose stigmatizing labels on select forms, it engages in personal misuse of a government instrument—an act that is both unconstitutional and administratively unlawful.
Disclaimer: This commentary is offered for informational and advocacy purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, nor does it create an attorney-client relationship. The analysis presented reflects constitutional principles, administrative standards, and public policy concerns relevant to the use of status classifications on government forms. Readers should consult qualified legal counsel for advice specific to their jurisdiction or circumstances. References to federal and state classification manuals are illustrative and do not imply endorsement or binding authority. No guarantee is made regarding outcomes in litigation, administrative review, or legislative reform. The author disclaims all liability for actions taken or not taken based on this content.
According to Floriduh, ” Once a Sexual Predator, always a Sexual Predator. ” Start marking Ron Book’s licence as a Drunkard, Lauren Book’s licence as a Princess Victim Grifter, and Senator Rick Scott’s licence Medicare Thief. Floriduh the state that keeps peeing on rights.
This libelous identifier – or “designation” — serves no legitimate tactical purpose in promoting any safety benefit. It’s just performative shaming and targeted hate of an already marginalized class.
Oh, and their flawed reasoning to justify this ruling it total BS rooted in ignorance.
The Judge is wrong.
Forcing one to show their DL/ID is forcing (or compelling) one to speak. It is used to prove who they are according to a state standard (their message) at any given moment the person is looking for something in return, e.g., to purchase booze/cigs/porn, enter a facility, etc. The personal data within the DL/ID is not the state’s but the person’s to which they must provide to the state to get a state sponsored and provided message DL/ID which must be used as mentioned above, but is still the person’s data, not the state’s. People don’t surrender their personal data to the state for them to use as they see fit.
Every Floridian is compelled to speak to show they meet the FLA state standard of proving who they are when commencing a transaction or having an interaction. The FLA DL/ID is the less restrictive most convenient way of doing that.
However, the stamping of the DL/ID with the words in question is not the least restrictive way of sharing the message as the Judge believes. Rather the possible showing of the state statute which the person qualifies under is the more appropriate least restrictive way (as FLA does as I understand for those who are not SVPs but rather SOs) and still qualify for the message they want the person to share. That is what courts have opined on and come to the conclusion of. FLA Court of Appeals is wrong.
There is a Fed case in FLA currently ongoing of this topic which was watching this state topic being hashed out and has asked for supplemental briefs. If this case votes for the stamp, there is the AL Fed case from 2019 that is opposite and could create is split in the 11 CCOA between two districts courts which will require a review of the matter as a whole, IIRC.
Can you image on the DL/ID at any moment having to whip it out to prove who you are and there is a stamp on it with DUI xZ (DUI times Z number of DUI convictions on it) to show all? It does not matter if they have been rehabilitated, gone sober, done all they need, but still show this on their DL/ID for the rest of their days? They’d move for a least restrictive method to show this data ASAP in the next legislative session.
“Any reasonable observer will understand that it’s the State’s message that Crist is a sexual predator, just as it’s the State’s message that he is licensed to drive in Florida and has a certain ‘date of birth, height, weight, or eye color,’” Pratt wrote.
That Judge just admitted the State violated US Constitution/1st Amendment and resulted in that Crist must serve a 17 year prison term.
“Judges Scott Makar and F. Rand Wallis agreed with Crist that the state statute in question was unconstitutional because it was not narrowly tailored.”
“This time, a majority of Judges — including Chief Judge Harvey Jay and Judges Joe Boatwright, Eric Eisnaughle, John Harris, Paige Kilbane and John MacIver — joined Pratt’s opinion upholding the law.”
That Judge, Jordan Pratt, just admitted the State violated it’s own Constitution as well as the US Constitution/1st Amendment and resulted in that Crist must serve a 17 year prison term.