@LegalGuardian I don't think you're disagreeing with me but rather I'm not explaining it well. I'm not disagreeing with anything you're saying about 566.147 but this thread is about 566.150 which is a completely different animal and because the Supreme court ruled 566.150 is criminal, nothing from 566.147 can be applied. As far as the original post is concerned this means their battle is already won it just needs to be pointed out to the right person that knows the difference between civil and criminal statutes. I also think you're getting another statue confused with both of these because 566.150 doesn't say anything about being in a daycare or make any other references to any kind of property other than real property with a public park containing playground equipment and/or public pool. This is radically different from 566.147 which references two separate, distinct properties, one a residence and the other a restricted real property.

566.150 states a limitation of 500 feet for a specific person and only the person. 566.147 states a limitation of 1000 feet from a residence, not a specific person. 566.147 is a civil statute which leaves room to interpret how a residence is defined and the language of 566.147 includes "For purposes of this section, "resides" means sleeps in a residence, which may include more than one location and may be mobile or transitory." giving the courts a lot of room to interpret.

566.150 is a criminal statute which requires more precision than that and it has it on this point. There's no other way to define a specific person as anything other than a specific person in a criminal statute. Remove what defines the specific person and you end up with "Any person ........shall not knowingly be present in or loiter within five hundred feet of any real property comprising any public park with playground equipment or a public swimming pool." The only real property that can ever be considered is the park and/or pool because that's the only real property ever referenced making this interpretation:

"When measuring the distance to determine if the 500 foot rule is violated, it depends. If the person is on a sidewalk for example, then yes, the measurement used is the point where the person is standing. But if the person is in a building, the point of measurement is determined by the property lines of that building and the daycare etc."

Completely irrelevant. The distance in 566.150 can never be measured from anything other than a specific person regardless of whether that person is standing on a sidewalk, shopping in Wal Mart, driving by or visiting someone in a private residence. Again since it's a criminal statute this is also irrelevant:

"So unless I can fly or walk though walls, for example, then the distance cannot always be measured by a straight line. "

That kind of leeway is only allowed for interpretation of a civil statute and cannot be done with a criminal statute. Civil statutes allow for interpretations that prejudice registered citizens in the way 566.147 does but criminal statues and interpretation does not. Here the terms could not be more clear or less ambiguous. "Person" and "five hundred feet". Those are clear, unambiguous, hard, bright line terms in criminal law. They are elements that must be met and cannot be ignored. In a criminal case the prosecution wouldn't even be able to mention part of the property a person was standing in was within 500 feet of a park unless they could prove the person was on that part of the property because doing so would unfairly prejudice a criminal defendant.