DOJ-OGR-00030486.jpg

LAW OFFICES OF
GERALD B. LEFCOURT, P.C.

Ms. Lanna Belohlavek
June 5, 2006
Page 4

F.S.A. §§ 943.0435, 784.021. However, the offense of sexual battery is on the list, as well as the charge of lewd and lascivious behavior, so there is no assurance that, in the future, a Florida prosecutor or court will not take the position that, where the aggravated assault is combined with what some states have labeled a “sexually motivated intent” registration is required.

Moreover, as you indicated at our meeting, there is no guarantee that the Florida legislature will not expand the category of persons subject to Megan’s law, and expressly make persons convicted of aggravated assault subject to the law, especially where the felony the actor had the intent to commit is a sexual offense, and the victim is a minor. The trend today is towards expansion, not contraction, of these kinds of statutes, and as you noted, Florida will be no exception. See, e.g., “Sex Offenders; No More Escaping Registration,” 36 McGeorge L. Rev 822 2005 (Over the last twenty years expanded registration requirements, enhanced penalties for failure to register, and public notification provisions have enlarged the scope of sex offender registration laws); see news articles of just this past week infra describing many of the proscriptions being adopted around the nation. And, the ex post facto clause stands as no significant bar. See Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003) (upholding Alaska Sex Offender Registration Act against a challenge that its application to persons whose offenses were committed prior to its enactment would violate the ex post facto clause). If this trend continues, as it likely will, the client will almost certainly be subject to sex offender registration.

Even if the client is not and will never be subject to registration requirements under Florida’s laws, a plea to aggravated assault under the circumstances of this case could subject him to Megan’s Law requirements in other jurisdictions. Thus, if the client pleads guilty to the proposed aggravated assault charge, there is a grave risk that under existing state and Virgin Islands law – quite apart from future expansion or expansive construction of those laws – he will be subject to sex offender registration requirements and/or criminal exposure for failure to register. There is an even graver risk still that there will be future expansion of the statutes or expansive construction of them that will mean he is covered or arguably so. See, e.g., Cherry Hill Sex Offender Ordinance Upheld, Courier Post, June 1, 2006, at http://www.courierpostonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060601/NEWS01/606010389/1006;² More States Move to Use GPS Tracking of Sex Offenders, Fox News, May 31, 2006, at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,196455,00.html; Sex Offenders Sue City Over Park, Pools

² This article discusses a decision handed down by a municipal court judge in New Jersey during the course of our meeting. That decision upheld a zoning restriction on sex offenders living within 2500 feet of schools, parks, playgrounds, public libraries, or day care centers. While other jurisdictions’ zoning laws currently restrict such individuals from living within 1000 feet of these institutions, were they to follow the lead of Cherry Hill, New Jersey, the client would most certainly be faced with the added burdens of selling his residences and moving in order to be in compliance with the law.

07/26/17
Page 19 of 131
Public Records Request No.: 17-295
DOJ-OGR-00030486