Does v. Miami-Dade County, No. 19–10254 (11th Cir. 2020)
Nature of Case: Plaintiffs were Miami-Dade County residents with past sex offense convictions. As such, they became subject to Miami-Dade’s housing banishment laws, which was passed subsequent to their convictions. Plaintiffs brought a civil rights challenge alleging that the law facially violated their Ex Post Facto rights under the state and federal constitutions. At the close of the trial, plaintiffs moved to conform their pleadings to the evidence and include an as-applied claim. The district court found that the law was not facially unconstitutional and denied plaintiff’s motion. The plaintiffs sought review of the decision to deny their post-trial motion to include an as-applied claim.
Holding: The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the district court, finding that because Miami-Dade County would be prejudiced by the inclusion of an as-applied claim, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion.
- 11th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion | view via Google Scholar
- Appellant’s Brief
- District Court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
News and Related Materials
- The Marshall Project — Banished: Miami-Dade County’s Homeless Sex Offender Problem