Page 1 of 45
UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO URT
FOR THE SOUTH ERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 1:14-cv-23933-PCH
JOlqx DoE #4, JOHN DoE //5
Joldx DoE #6, and Joux Doi #7,
Plaintiffs,
M IA M I-DA D E C OUN TY , FLORID A ,
Defendant.
FIN D IN G S O F FA C T AN D C O N CLU SIO N S O F LA W
Plaintiffs, John Does #4-7, hom eless registered sex offenders, brought this action against
M iami-Dade County t' h county'') 1 They ( t e . assert that a M iami-Dade County ordinance,
prohibiting them from residing within 2,500 feet of a school, on its face, violates the ex post
facto clauses of the United States and Florida Constitutions. The County raises the statute of
limitations as an affinnative defense. This Court has original subject-matter jurisdiction over this
action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. j 133 1 because one claim arises under the United States
Constitution.
This m atter is before the Court for nzling following a bench trial held October 22-26,
2018. The Court heard the testim ony of 20 witnesses, reviewed the exhibits admitted into
evidence, considered the parties' Joint Pre--frial Stipulation, Proposed Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law, nmended Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, supplemental
briefing, and other pertinent portions of the record. Having considered the evidence and being
otherwise duly advised, the Court finds as follow s.
1 The Court uses the terms lIhomeless'' and Gttransient'' interchangeably. W hen sex offenders register their address
with law enforcement, they are considered lçtransient'' if they do not have a permanent address.
Case 1:14-cv-23933-PCH Document 184 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/18/2018 Page 1 of 45
Page 2 of 45
1.
On November 15, 2005, the Cotmty enacted Ordinance No. 05-206 (the tlordinance'').
The Ordinance prohibits an individual convicted as an adult of certain sexual offenses n w 2 i hich
BA CK G RO U ND A ND PR O CE DU R AL H ISTO R Y
the victim is 15 years or younger from residing within 2,500 feet of a school. A school is defined
as a ûûpublic or private kindergarten, elementary, middle, or secondary (high) school.'' The stated
goal of the Ordinance is lûto prom ote, protect and im prove the health, safety and welfare of the
citizens of the County, particularly childreng.j''
The Ordinance applies retroactively to sexual offenders convicted of covered crim es,
even if the crim e were com mitted before the County enaded the Ordinance in 2005. However,
the Ordinance contains a ûûgrandfather clause,'' which provides that the residency restriction does
not apply to sexual offenders who: (1) established their residence prior to the enactment of the
Ordinance; or (2) established their residence prior to a school opening within 2,500 feet of the
residence. Under the Ordinance, anyone who violates the County's residency restriction shall be
ptmished by a tine not to exceed $1,000 or imprisonment in the County jail for not more than
364 days or by both fine and imprisonment.
Originally the Ordinance gave mtmicipalities the option to opt-out of the County's
residency restriction and enact their own residency restrictions. By 2010, 24 mtmicipalities in
M inm i-Dade County enacted ordinances that were m ore restrictive, prohibiting sex offenders
from living within 2,500 feet of various points including schools, daycares, parks, playgrounds,
bus stops, and other places where children may congregate. These mtmicipal ordinances
effectively reduced and shifted the available compliant housing for sexual offenders to the
2 The sexual offenses covered by the Ordinance include violations of Fla. Stat. j 794.01 1 (sexual battelyl; j 800.04
(lewd and lascivious acts on/in presence of persons under age 16); j 827.071 (sexual perfonnance by a child) or j
847.0145 (selling or buying of minors for portrayal in sexually explicit conduct). ln 20 l0, Miami-Dade County
added violations of Fla. Stat. j 847.0135(5) (sexual acts transmitted over computer) to the qualifying offenses.
Case 1:14-cv-23933-PCH Document 184 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/18/2018 Page 2 of 45
Page 3 of 45
unincop orated areas of the County and to cities that had not yet enacted sexual offender
residency restrictions. On January 21, 2010, the County enacted O rdinance N o. l 0-01, w hich
am ended the Ordinance to preempt all of the m ore restrictive municipal ordinances, applying the
County's residency restriction countywide. The Board of County Comm issioners fotmd that this
m easure struck û$a proper balance between protecting children around the crucial and vulnerable
areas of schools while still leaving available residential units in which sexual offenders can tind
housing.''
On October 23, 2014, former plaintiffs, Jolm Does #1, 2, and 3, and the Florida Action
Com m ittee, Inc., filed the initial Com plaint, alleging m ultiple constitutional challenges to the
Ordinance. The Com plaint w as am ended on D ecem ber 20, 2014. On April 3, 2015, this Court
dismissed the Am ended Complaint for failure to state a cause of action. Plaintiffs appealed. The
Eleventh Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in pal4 the ex post facto claim , holding that Does
//1 and 3 alleged plausible ex post facto claim s. Doe v. M iami-Dade C@., Fla., 846 F.3d 1 180,
1 182 (1 1th Cir. 2017).
On October 5, 2017, Doe #3, along with four new plaintiffs (Does #4-7), filed the
Second Amended Complaint, alleging only two counts against the County: facial ex post facto
violations under the United States Constitution (Count 1) and Florida Constitution (Count 11).
Subsequently Doe //3 withdrew from the suit, which proceeded as to Does #4-7. The Court
denied the County's M otion for Summ ary Judgment and held a bench trial on October 22-26,
2018.
At the trial, the parties subm itted docum entary evidence and called num erous witnesses
to testify, including expert witnesses. Plaintiffs testified about the Ordinance's impact on their
ability to find housing. Plaintiffs called witnesses from the M inm i-D ade County H om eless Tnlst
3
Case 1:14-cv-23933-PCH Document 184 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/18/2018 Page 3 of 45