Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sex Offender Restrictions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate committee advances bill expanding residency and presence bans for registrants despite expert opposition
Summary
The Judiciary Committee advanced CS/CS/CS for SB 212 after adopting a strike-all amendment that adds public pools and other child-centered locations to residency/presence restrictions. Experts, civil-rights groups and service providers testified the measure lacks empirical support and risks homelessness for people on registries.
The Florida Senate Judiciary Committee on Feb. 11 advanced CS/CS/CS for SB 212, a bill that expands residency and presence restrictions to add certain child-centered locations, including public swimming pools, and narrows the prohibited area to the immediate water feature and surrounding area. Sponsor Senator MacLean said the amendment was intended to make the law clearer and more enforceable.
Why it matters: Supporters said the changes give law enforcement more consistent tools to protect children and create uniform definitions for restricted areas. Opponents — including treatment providers, racial-equity advocates, homeless-service organizations and academics — told the committee the bill lacks empirical evidence showing proximity bans reduce abuse and warned the changes could increase homelessness and impose retroactive penalties on people whose sentences are complete.
Experts and public testimony: Anne Salamon, speaking on behalf of Dr. George Deichman and the Florida Association for the Treatment and Prevention of Sex Abuse, told senators that “to our knowledge, no empirical evidence demonstrates that such locations function as a risk factor” and asked the committee what evidence underlies the bill. Christine Richmond, citing research, said most offenses involve people known to victims and noted decades of residency restrictions have not reduced recidivism.
Public-interest concerns: David Pirie of the Florida Coalition to Advance Racial Equity warned the bill could exacerbate homelessness, arguing that proximity limits tied to recreational features could prevent people from returning to their homes after natural disasters or limit access to employment. Other witnesses raised constitutional concerns about retroactivity and the potential for collateral consequences for families.
Sponsor response and outcome: The sponsor said the amendment strikes a balance between protecting children and avoiding undue hardship on law-abiding residents. After discussion and a roll call, the committee adopted the amendment and reported the bill favorably, 8 yays to 1 nay.
Next steps: CS/CS/CS for SB 212 was reported favorably by the committee and will proceed to the Senate’s next stop for consideration.
