The SOLAR Project - Sex Offender Legal Advocacy & Reform
Back to Blog
Legal Analysis

Custody Without Cages: Why Clements v. Secretary, DOC Could Redefine Liberty

Do Florida's registry and residency rules amount to "custody" for habeas corpus? The Eleventh Circuit wants a fact-driven answer. Here is the law, data, lived reality—and what's at stake.

By SOLAR•August 27, 2025•Legal analysis with verified sources
💡
TL;DR: Florida's registry and residency rules impose frequent, compelled, in-person reporting, geographic exclusion zones, and felony exposure for technical missteps—all while enlisting the public to monitor compliance. The Eleventh Circuit remanded Clements so the district court can decide if those combined restraints are "custody" for habeas. If yes, it opens a federal forum for people long past their sentences.

The Case: Why the Eleventh Circuit Hit Pause

Habeas corpus—the "Great Writ"—is meant to guard against unlawful restraint. The threshold question is whether a person is "in custody." In Clements I (11th Cir. 2023), the court affirmed dismissal, holding Florida's registration/reporting alone wasn't enough. But in Clements II (July 2025), the Eleventh Circuit vacated and remanded for factual development on Florida's residency restrictions in combination with registration burdens.

Following remand, the Middle District of Florida reopened the case and set briefing into mid-November 2025. See the advocacy update from the Florida Action Committee here and their follow-up on the "opportunity to help" here.

⏰
Key insight: The Eleventh Circuit didn't answer the custody question—it insisted on facts. That alone is a turning point, because modern registry regimes are built from details: deadlines, distances, check-ins, and penalties.

What "Custody" Actually Means in Habeas

Supreme Court doctrine focuses on restraint, not labels. In Jones v. Cunningham (1963), parole was custody because of ongoing control and the threat of reincarceration. In Hensley v. Municipal Court (1973), even release on recognizance was custody due to compelled appearances. By contrast, Maleng v. Cook (1989) held that collateral consequences of a fully expired sentence don't qualify.

That's why the circuits split on registries. The Third Circuit held Pennsylvania's scheme was custody in Piasecki (2019), emphasizing compelled, in-person reporting under threat of criminal sanction. By contrast, the Fourth and Sixth Circuits (and others) deemed their states' regimes non-custodial: see Wilson v. Flaherty (4th Cir. 2012) and Hautzenroeder v. DeWine (6th Cir. 2018).

⚖️
Key point: "Custody" turns on the severity of restraint (compelled appearances, movement limits, threat of incarceration)—not whether a legislature calls a scheme "civil." Our Know Your Rights guide explains how these legal distinctions affect your protections.

Florida's Rules, Not the Labels

Florida's statute, § 943.0435, requires in-person reporting within 48 hours of many changes (address, vehicles, employment, email identifiers), with transient individuals required to show up every 30 days. Noncompliance is a felony. The state residency rule in § 775.215 bars living within 1,000 feet of schools, parks, playgrounds, or child-care centers for specified offenses; local ordinances, such as Miami-Dade's 2,500-foot ordinance, expand exclusion zones even further.

Florida also runs a public notification and alert system through FDLE, making registry data widely accessible and encouraging community monitoring (FDLE registry portal). According to the Legislature's oversight arm (OPPAGA 2024), enforcement involves multiple agencies (FDLE, DOC, sheriffs, local police) that verify addresses and share data—an operational supervision network, not a passive list.

🚨
Reality check: If a probation officer ordered monthly in-person check-ins, barred most neighborhoods, and made a late email update a felony—we would call that custody. Florida calls it registration.

Supervision by Other Means

  • Compelled presence: frequent in-person reporting (and every 30 days if unhoused) mirrors probationary oversight (§ 943.0435).
  • Geographic exile: statewide 1,000-ft buffers plus local 2,500-ft zones erase practical housing in dense areas (Miami-Dade ordinance).
  • Felony exposure for technical lapses: noncompliance is a crime, not a civil infraction (OPPAGA 2024).
  • Citizen deputization: FDLE alerts invite neighbors and landlords to watch and report (FDLE portal).
  • Multi-agency verification: FDLE/DOC/sheriffs actively cross-check and enforce (OPPAGA 2024).
🔍
Pattern recognition: These aren't isolated requirements—they're an integrated system of control that would be familiar to any parole officer. Our federal process guide explains how supervision typically works in the criminal justice system.

What the Data Say

Housing exclusion & clustering

Urban geospatial analyses show severe scarcity of lawful housing under overlapping buffers. For example, Orange County mapping tied 1,000–2,500-foot buffers to a collapse of viable parcels (Zandbergen & Hart, 2009). In South Florida, a 2,500-ft zone helped produce homeless encampments, litigated in Doe v. Miami-Dade (11th Cir. 2019).

No safety benefit from proximity laws

The Minnesota DOC (2007) found that residential proximity to schools/parks did not predict sexual reoffense and that residency bans would not have prevented the studied crimes.

Recidivism reality

The Bureau of Justice Statistics (2019) 9-year study reported a 7.7% sexual rearrest rate for those released on sex offenses—far lower than many property/drug/gun categories—undercutting the premise that registrants uniquely require lifetime geographic exile.

Florida's own auditors

The Legislature's OPPAGA (2024) links residency bans to homelessness and transience, complicating monitoring and potentially reducing public safety through instability.

✅
Evidence over fear: Broad residency bans don't reduce sexual reoffending, but they do increase homelessness. Stability—housing, employment, treatment—is what improves safety. Our myth-busting analysis explores this evidence in detail.

How Courts Have Split

Custody recognized

The Third Circuit in Piasecki (2019) held that compelled, in-person reporting and ongoing criminal liability created custody for habeas purposes.

Custody rejected

Other circuits—e.g., Hautzenroeder (6th Cir. 2018) and Wilson (4th Cir. 2012)—treated their registries as collateral. But those opinions often addressed older or lighter-touch schemes and did not consider the full, modern layering of residency zones plus short-fuse in-person demands.

⚖️
Why Clements matters: The Eleventh Circuit's remand signals that facts—maps, affidavits, agency practices—will decide whether Florida's combined regime is indistinguishable from supervision.

What's at Stake

  • Access to federal review: If this is custody, people bound by registries can use habeas to challenge unconstitutional convictions—even years after release.
  • Civil liberties: Letting states impose parole-like control while calling it "civil" risks hollowing out the Great Writ.
  • Public safety: Stability—not exclusion—is correlated with desistance. Residency bans push in the wrong direction.
🎯
Broader implications: This case could affect registry challenges nationwide. If Florida's system constitutes custody, similar regimes in other states may face renewed scrutiny. Our advocacy work tracks these developments across jurisdictions.

SOLAR's Lens: Evidence Over Fear

The SOLAR Project's core positions align with the record developing in Clements:

  • Ineffectiveness & harm: Registries and buffer zones are not evidence-based and inflict collateral damage on families and communities.
  • Stranger-danger myth: Most abuse involves known individuals; school-centric maps don't target real risk.
  • Disproportionate civil punishment: Other high-risk crimes don't trigger lifetime public shaming and housing exile.
  • Individualization: Risk-based, tailored conditions (where necessary) beat blanket rules every time.
  • Dignity & redemption: People are more than their worst act; laws should reflect pathways to reintegration, not permanent underclasses.
💡
Bottom line: The question isn't whether the registry is called "civil." It's whether its restraints—on movement, housing, and daily life—are so severe that, in substance, they are custody. Our registry analysis explores these constitutional questions in depth.

What to Watch Before November 14

  • Briefing deadline: Parties are expected to brief by mid-November 2025 (FAC coverage here).
  • Factual record: Expect maps of exclusion zones, affidavits on displacement and reporting burdens, and documentation of multi-agency verification practices.
  • Amici: Civil-liberties groups and criminologists may weigh in on custody, efficacy, and public-safety impacts.
📋
Stay informed: This case represents a potential watershed moment for registry law. Follow our blog for updates as the briefing develops and the court considers the evidence.

Conclusion: Invisible Fences, Real Custody

Custody isn't just bars and chains. Sometimes it's the monthly trek to the sheriff's office, the housing desert drawn by 2,500-foot circles, and the neighbors deputized to surveil. Clements asks the courts to see what the evidence shows: when the fences are invisible but inescapable, liberty is restrained all the same.

🔓
The stakes: If courts recognize that modern registry regimes constitute custody, it opens federal habeas review for thousands who thought their legal options were exhausted. That's not just a legal technicality—it's a pathway to justice for people trapped in systems that exceed constitutional bounds.

Sources & Further Reading