Source: floridaactioncommittee.org
The Florida Action Committee (FAC), a statewide nonprofit organization advocating for evidence-based criminal justice policies, today announced the filing of a sweeping federal lawsuit challenging Florida’s sex offender registration and restriction scheme as unconstitutional.
Filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida (Case No. 4:26-cv-00388-MW-MJF), the lawsuit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against Florida Department of Law Enforcement Commissioner Mark Glass, along with fifty counties and municipalities that enforce additional residency and presence restrictions. The complaint argues that Florida’s registry has evolved far beyond its original purpose as a public notification system and now functions as a system of perpetual punishment that violates multiple provisions of the United States Constitution.
FAC Spokesperson Teresa Bond explained, “this is not just another challenge to one law or one ordinance. This case asks the courts to recognize what has become increasingly obvious over the past three decades: Florida’s registry is no longer a civil regulatory system. It has become a lifetime system of punishment that reaches far beyond any sentence imposed by a judge.”
The lawsuit alleges that Florida’s registration scheme, together with the network of local ordinances adopted throughout the state, imposes severe and continuing restrictions on where individuals may live, travel, work, and even be present. It further alleges that the cumulative effect of these laws amounts to banishment, perpetual supervision, and punishment long after individuals have completed their court-imposed sentences.
Among the constitutional claims raised in the lawsuit are allegations that Florida’s laws violate:
The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment;
The Constitution’s Ex Post Facto Clause by retroactively increasing punishment;
The fundamental constitutional right to interstate travel;
Due process through vague and undefined criminal prohibitions;
The First Amendment by restricting protected speech in public places.
Unlike prior litigation …
Majority of those listed on the Florida registry don’t even live in Florida and therefore are on their registry for life. Florida’s registry has been bloated for decades and I hope that Florida gets their asses handed to them on a silver platter.
A civil regulatory scheme does NOT put you in prison or incur a felony and this is why it CANNOT be legallyregarded as a civil regulatory scheme.
Here is the difference as defined by law:
Definition of a Civil Regulatory SchemeA civil regulatory scheme is a framework set up by government authorities to enforce compliance with laws and regulations through civil penalties instead of criminal sanctions. These schemes are designed to promote adherence to regulations while ensuring that the enforcement process is fair and effective.
Key Features of a civil regulatory schemePurpose
Compliance Enforcement: Ensures that individuals and organizations follow established laws and regulations.Non-Criminal Approach: Focuses on civil penalties rather than criminal charges, which can carry more severe consequences.Structure
Decision-Making: Aims for clear and consistent principles in decision-making processes.Flexibility: Recognizes that different regulatory areas may require tailored approaches rather than a one-size-fits-all solution.
Distinction from Criminal
Civil Regulatory Scheme Criminal
Sanctions:Non-criminal penalties Criminal charges with potential prison time
Enforcement: Civil penalties for non-compliance Criminal prosecution
Objective: Promote compliance and fairness Punish wrongdoing and deter crime
So we see here by clear and simple legal language that the registry is by all legal definition NOT a civil regulatory scheme but a punitive, criminal scheme.
It was a civil scheme when an FTR was only a fine, but then was changed to a felony which made it a ‘criminal/punitive’ scheme, but they continue to falsely, and by all legal definitions,illegally call it a civil scheme.
The courts should certainly be asked to define what is the difference between a civil regulatory scheme and a criminal and this would certainly expose the cobra they have painted with wool. You can’t have one that is both at the same time.
The courts cannot deny the legal difference.
Civil regulatory schemes do NOT imprison you and incur a felony! Period!
They have to admit it is a criminal/punitive scheme, NOT a civil.
iirc, FAC is relatively new compared to ACSOL (formerly CA RSOL). I am impressed with their ferocity in such little time. This lawsuit will be a long battle, so don’t expect anything to happen anytime soon.
Meanwhile, I do hope someone takes up the Florida Driver’s license case since it’s already set up and needing a new client who’s eligibility has not run out.
This is great news. I wish them the best of luck. If this works, the rest will follow.
I really wish posting could separate items as they are composed by the author.
The first post should be side-by-side concerning the difference between civil and criminal.
Here they are separated, at least I hope.
Civil Regulatory Scheme:
Nature: Non-criminal penalties
Enforcement: Civil penalties such as fines for non-compliance.
Objective:Promote compliance and fairness
Criminal Regulatory Scheme:
Nature: Criminal charges with potential prison time.
Enforcement: Criminal prosecution
Objective: Punish wrongdoing and deter crime.
Civil regulatory schemes typically do not impose criminal penalties, as they are designed to enforce compliance through civil penalties rather than criminal sanctions. The distinction between civil and criminal penalties is significant in regulatory law.
So it is plain and clear by legal definition the registry is NOT a civil regulatory scheme because it incurs criminal penalties.