Sex offender tries to hide status on driver's license

Except for the fact that this happened in Florida, I cannot see how they can criminalize his action, assuming he placed a red marker over a portion of the words on the license. Once a license is issued, the physical license is OWNED by the person it is issued to; it is private property. At best, such markings may invalidate the license, but to criminalize his actions is overreaching. He did not change his name, address or anything that identifies him. The altered portion has no legal significance to driving privileges. What if a person had a dirty license, would they be charged with fraud? What if a person said it was in his pocket and refused to take it out, fraud? This world, no maybe just Florida, has gone nuts over anything sexually related. Does Florida's sex offender laws make it a crime to FAIL/HIDE the fact that one is a RSO, a crime?

1-26-2009 Florida:

CRESTVIEW -- A man pulled over for a traffic stop on Jan. 8 was arrested after an Okaloosa County Sheriff's Office deputy noticed that there was a bright red line in the middle of his driver's license.

After John William Redmond, who is 42, was arrested for DUI, the deputy noticed that the red line smeared. When it was wiped off, the words "Criminal Sex Offender" were revealed, according to his arrest report.

He was charged with fraud for trying to hide his status as a sex offender. ..Source..

COMMENTARY:
Does this violate the ex post facto clause, most would say, no, but read on. When RSOs go in to register they provide information to the registry. Then the registry displays certain of that information on a public registry; all state action. However, driver's licenses and license plates are vastly different. How you ask? Well, who is carrying the state's message, the RSO, that is not like the state displaying information on the Internet. In the U.S. Supreme court, the case of Smith v. Doe (Sex offender registration), during Oral Argument the following discussion took place between Mr. Olson (then Solicitor General for the U.S.) and Justice Kennedy:

Justice Kennedy QUESTION: Could -- could the State require a special mark on your license plate?

MR. OLSON: No, I -- well, I don't know, Justice Kennedy, but I would say that would be considerably different than what's here because that would --

QUESTION: I don't think it's very different.

MR. OLSON: Pardon me?

QUESTION: I don't think it's very different.

MR. OLSON: I -- I respectfully submit that it's a great deal different. That mark on your license plate, or mark on your forehead would go wherever you would go. It would require you to carry the government's message rather than the government supplying the message.

QUESTION: Well, this statute requires you to make the government's message four times a year.

MR. OLSON: It only -- it doesn't require you to make the government's message four times a year. The government's message, I respectfully submit, is made when a citizen submits an inquiry to the State through the Internet listing. All -- it is required four times a year is to advise the government of a current location or current information so that the information on the registry is accurate and -- and up-to-date.

So, who is carrying the message? It is the RSO when it is on his driver's license or license plate. That distinction, following the sentencing where it was not part of the sentence, could very well be construed as further punishment. i.e., a ex post facto violation. Apparently, there is something in law about, who carries the message, and lawyers know about this. Now to find those lawyers to fight the issue all the way to the U.S. Supreme court. That may be easier said than done.