by Chuck Sharman

Prisoners released from terms for violent sexual offenses may find that Florida is not “the free state” that it claims to be. In an en banc ruling on August 15, 2025, the state Court of Appeal (COA) for the Fifth District reversed an earlier panel ruling, finding no constitutional violation was committed against former prisoner Michael Crist when he was compelled to carry a driver’s license bearing the phrase “Sexual Predator.”

Crist, now 50, completed a prison term for his offense in 2008 and began a 17-­year term of supervised release. Under a 2007 law, his driver’s license bore the phrase identifying his conviction. But at some point, Crist concealed it under a smiley-­face emoji sticker. When a cop discovered that during a 2019 registration check, Crist was charged with violating the state license-­marking statutes, § 322.141 and § 322.212.

During the pendency of his case, a federal court in Alabama sustained a similar challenge from a former prisoner objecting to a license-­marking requirement. See: Doe 1 v. Marshall, 367 F. Supp. 3d 1310 (M.D. Ala. 2019). So did the Supreme Court of Louisiana, which said that the state may reasonably require sex offenders to identify themselves to law enforcement, but the mechanism must be more narrowly tailored than “big orange letters” on a license. See: State v. Hill, 341 So. 3d 539 (La. 2020).

Relying on those rulings, Crist moved to suppress the charge, arguing that the underlying statutes were unconstitutional as applied to his case because the license marking effectively compelled him to adopt the state’s draconian view of his own character, in violation of his First Amendment free speech rights. The trial court denied the motion, giving him leave to appeal after pleading no contest to the charges. At the Fifth District COA, a divided panel found his argument persuasive and vacated the trial court’s motion ruling. The full Fifth District then decided to rehear the case en banc.

But first the Court reviewed its jurisdiction. No matter how it ruled, there would be no new trial; if the panel’s ruling were overturned, Crist’s conviction would stand, and if upheld, Crist’s charges would be dropped. Thus the order to suppress his motion at the trial court was dispositive and appealable, the Court said, quoting Jones v. State, 806 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002): “An issue is legally dispositive … [when] … it is clear that regardless of whether the appellate court affirms or reverses the trial court’s decision, there will be no trial.”

Alabama and Louisiana Precedents Rejected

Turning to the merits of Crist’s argument, the full COA split with its panel, saying that it was not persuaded by the Alabama and Louisiana cases. Why not? Chiefly because in Corbitt v. Sec’y of the Ala. L. Enf’t Ag., 115 F.4th 1335 (11th Cir. 2024), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit rejected the contention that the sex identifier on a driver’s license compelled the carrier of the license to agree with the state’s definition of his or her—or their—gender. For good measure, the COA threw in another case more on point, though farther afield: a ruling from a federal court in California that the “sex offender” marking required on a passport is clearly the government’s speech and not the passport holder’s, creating no compulsion to join in it. See: Doe v. Kerry, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130788 (N.D. Cal.).

Of course, whether your license says “male” or “female” carries none of the negative connotation of “sexual predator.” And a driver’s license is a far more ubiquitous necessity than a passport used only at border crossings. But those arguments were not considered. Instead the Court started from Crist’s stipulation that the speech at issue is the government’s and quickly determined that putting it on his license, “albeit embarrassing,” did not compel him to join in it.

Dissenting Judge Scott D. Makar, who sat on the panel that originally heard the case, defended its work. First, he said, the state had conceded similarity between this case and Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977), in which the Supreme Court of the U.S. found that New Hampshire violated the free speech rights of motorists by compelling them to display the motto “Live Free or Die” on their license plates. Based on that, the panel concluded that the state had failed to choose the least restrictive means of furthering its interest in warning citizens of Crist’s potentially predatory behavior. That was the “limited legal issue the parties briefed and argued” to the panel, the judge continued, to which the en banc opinion “bears little resemblance.”

“To the contrary, the judge declared, “it is a judicially spawned intramural creation of its own making.” Judge F. Rand Wallis joined the dissent, but the other six judges hearing the case—a seventh recused himself—vacated the panel’s opinion, affirming the trial court’s denial of Crist’s motion.

Before the Court, Crist was represented by Daytona Beach Public Defenders Matthew Metz and Jane Almy, with an amicus curiae brief by Hollywood attorney Harvey J. Sepler. See: Crist v. State, 50 Fla. L. Weekly 1833 (Dist. Ct. App. 2025).  

Subscribe today

Already a subscriber? Login

Related legal cases