LEE HANSON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Substantive Due Process cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant challenges the statutory scheme that imposes burdens and restrictions upon him, such as registration and public notification, by virtue of his designation as a sexual predator. § 775.21, Fla. Stat. (2004). He argues that the statute violates his substantive due process rights under the United States and Florida Constitutions because the statute presumes that he is likely to repeat his crimes, a presumption that Appellant may not refute by contrary evidence. In rejecting Appellant’s claim, we adopt the analysis of the court in Doe v. Moore, 410 F. 3d 1337 (11th Cir.2005), which rejected a similar attack on Florida’s statutory scheme requiring registration and public notification of persons designated as sexual offenders. § 943.0435, Fla. Stat. (2004).
AFFIRMED.
THOMPSON, PALMER and TORPY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Subido, 925 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…o the community, stating without argument or citation that the registration requirement of section 943.0435 is unconstitutional. We disagree because this issue has already been decided. See Milks v. State, 894 So. 2d 924 (Fla.2005); Hanson v. State, 905 So. 2d 1036 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005), rev. den., 917 So. 2d 193 (Fla.2005); Linderman v. State, 884 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Johnson v. State, 875 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Martin v. State, 864 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Miller v. State, 861 So. 2…
-
Miller v. State, 971 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…ose; budgetary concerns are a legitimate governmental interest); State v. Subido, 925 So. 2d 1052, 1060 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (citing Moore in support of conclusion that registration requirement of section 943.0435 is constitutional); Hanson v. State, 905 So. 2d 1036 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (adopting and applying the federal court’s substantive due process analysis in Moore to the Sexual Predator Act, section 775.21). For these reasons, we conclude that the challenged statute (1) applies to all similarly-situated p…
-
Garcia v. State, 909 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…d adopt the analysis set forth in Doe v. Moore, 410 F. 3d 1337 (11th Cir.2005), rejecting a substantive due process attack on the registration and public notification requirements of the Florida Sexual Offender Registration Act. See Hanson v. State, 905 So. 2d 1036 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)(adopting and applying the Moore court’s substantive due process analysis to the Sexual Predator Act, section 775.21). Affirmed.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- DOE v. Moore, 410 F.3d 1337 (11th Cir. 2005)