Crist v. State
Sitting en banc, the Fifth District rejected a sexual predator's First Amendment compelled-speech challenge to Florida's requirement that his driver license bear a 'SEXUAL PREDATOR' marking, affirming his conviction for possessing an altered license. The court held the marking is government speech (applying Walker's three-factor test) that does not compel Crist's own speech, aligning with the Eleventh Circuit's Corbitt decision and rejecting the contrary approach taken by the Louisiana Supreme Court and Alabama federal courts. The court also resolved a preliminary jurisdictional issue, holding that an order denying a constitutional challenge to a controlling statute is dispositive for purposes of a conditional no-contest plea reservation under Rule 9.140(b)(2)(A)(i).
Key facts
- Crist, a registered sexual predator, was convicted of possessing an altered driver license and challenged the state requirement that his license bear a 'SEXUAL PREDATOR' marking as a violation of his First Amendment rights.
- The trial court denied Crist's motion challenging the constitutionality of the statute requiring the marking, and Crist entered an open plea to a related count while reserving his right to appeal the constitutional issue.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This en banc decision resolves a matter of first impression in Florida and takes a definitive side in an emerging, unsettled split among state and federal courts over whether marked identification documents for sex… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.