FL: Lifetime Registration for Florida Sex Offenders Isn’t ‘Custody’

Source: The United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit 2/9/23

The question before us in this appeal—one of first impression—is whether Florida’s registration and reporting requirements for sex offenders render those offenders “in custody” within the meaning of § 2254(a). Though the question is difficult given Supreme Court and Eleventh Circuit precedent, our answer is no.

The Florida sex offender registration statute, in contrast, did not impose a “sentence” and did not constitute “punishment.”

Download a PDF of the decision:

Eleventh-Circuit-Ruling-No.-21-12540-D.C.-Docket-No.-217-cv-00396-JLB-NPM.pdf

Related posts

Subscribe
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.  
 

17 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I love how this court dances around the “obligation” to register as not being custody. And the lame legal reasoning is that requirements vary by state. This is why these morons should not sit on a court. No reasonable person would view it as anything other than “custody.” The state “makes” you do it. It is a sentence. Period.

wow! “Sex offenders in Florida do face a number of residency re- strictions in addition to state registration and reporting require- ments. But for several reasons we decline to address those resi- dency restrictions in this appeal and leave them for another day.”

I think we have to find a different angle when litigating. The court is saying it’s not custody by the definition of custody. We have to chip away at reputation for those states whose constitution protects reputation or go in on the punishment angle, which it clearly is because it takes away several civil liberties.

Also violation of due process seems to be a good argument if the state or city is unable to allow registrants the ability to register timely – like in Chicago where they require all registrants to go to one office to register, but they do not have the staff to manage the volume and keep turning away registrants and making them come back over and over. Then a week or two goes by and they are non-compliant by missing the registration date and if they were lucky enough to have a job, they probably lost it missing so much work to (not) register.

I just think if you have to be at a certain place at the certain time then THAT should be custody!
what do you think those Lawyer did wrong? I hope it not the “price club” mistake again..

“Custody” is temporary restraint pending booking and processing. No.. the registry IS actually a form of incarceration!

The registry is performative hate and malicious posturing for political points.

The suit was filed pro se, but had counsel. Therein lies the problem, the suit wasn’t argued very well nor presented correctly, which is why the residency restriction was not argued. The argument needed a lot of scientific data to make it’s claim like California’s re:Taylor case that residency restrictions was banishment.

Although, by reading the court’s decisions, they flip-flop on custody description because requiring in-person reporting or be put put in jail for not reporting is a description of being in custody akin to missing a probation or parole check-in. Freedom of movement isn’t completely free considering the registrant must inform the state if a person moves to a new residency, state, or to another country.

Collateral consequences is what the Courts describe the registry, but there exists constitutional law that cites involuntary servitude is prohibited except for punishment of a crime. If it is not punishment, then levying a person to do something against their own will is prohibited and unconstitutional.

One other point, the Court did refer to a stat that reported a high recidivism rate once a person is incarcerated. This can easily be debunked and be specified as re-offense rate.

Anyhow, the 11th Court noted that the 3rd Court (iirc, which is Penn) found the registry punitive.

Considering is a form of custody served in the community under the supervision of the Probation Office, and registerants MUST register and abide by laws implemented specifically for them and are under the supervision of their local police to follow said laws, common sense says its a form of custody. Considering a judge awhile back said she wasnt prepared to describe what a female is, I’m not surprised…….

IT most certainly IS punishment. I am listed on their registry for life for something I did not do 25 years ago. I left the state 17 years ago and have not been back. However, since I am listed for life I still am considered a REGISTERED SO.

Even though I do not actively register in the state…therefore they do NOT have my correct address NOR an updated photo (neither will ever be updated because I will never step foot back in that state).

So – what good is an innacurate registry in which over HALF those listed do NOT live in the state of Florida at all!?!