TALLAHASSEE — A divided appeals court Friday ruled that a state requirement for convicted sexual predators to have the words “SEXUAL PREDATOR” on their driver’s licenses violates First Amendment rights.

The 2-1 decision by a panel of Florida’s 5th District Court of Appeal said the required designation is compelled speech that is not narrowly tailored to meet the state’s goals of informing the public about the presence of sexual predators.

The ruling, which came in a Sumter County case, would not affect Florida’s system of publishing information online about sexual predators, such as where they live. Also, it would not affect a designation placed on the driver’s licenses of convicted sexual offenders, whose crimes differ from sexual predators. Sexual offenders’ licenses include the number of a sexual-offender statute — not the label “sexual offender.”

Judge Scott Makar, in a 16-page majority opinion joined by Judge F. Rand Wallis, cited rulings that rejected Louisiana and Alabama laws similar to the Florida sexual-predator requirement. Makar wrote that Florida’s systems of publishing information online and providing notifications to the public about the presence of sexual predators “meet constitutional standards by disseminating information broadly without compelling speech by individual registrants.”

“The question, however, is whether — given the robust registration and notification systems in place for use by the general public and law enforcement — the state has proven it has no less intrusive means and must necessarily use the SEXUAL PREDATOR designation on driver licenses rather than use a code or statute number as it does for sexual offenders,” the majority opinion said. “Existing precedent, though limited, holds that the use of a code or number is constitutional under compelled speech analysis because they provide information to persons with a need to know it; it is narrowly tailored in that sense. Persons needing to screen for sexual predators can ask to see a driver license and determine if it has the code/number. … In other words, compelled use of the SEXUAL PREDATOR designation to the world at large is overbroad if a more narrow and functional means of communication is available.”

Makar described information on driver’s licenses as a “conglomeration of governmental and personal speech.”

“Florida laudably has rigorous registration and notification systems designed to closely monitor sexual offenders and sexual predators,” the majority opinion said. “The systems inform the public and law enforcement about the location and backgrounds of sexual offenders and sexual predators, which includes notifications to the public and institutions such as schools and churches when sexual offenders and predators reside in their neighborhoods. The designation of SEXUAL PREDATOR on a personal driver license, however, is the type of compelled speech that is a step too far as the Louisiana Supreme Court and an Alabama federal court have held. The availability of numbers, symbols, or codes in various colors and fonts (that could be used to designate sexual predators), as an example, shows a lack of narrow tailoring and that the government’s compelling interest in protecting the public can be achieved without compelling speech impermissibly.”

Judge Adrian Soud, however, wrote a 13-page dissent that called the majority ruling “ill-conceived” and a “dangerously wayward opinion that ends in a repugnant result with deleterious effect.”

“First, the majority unjustifiably strips from law enforcement and the public generally the ability to readily identify through a government-issued certificate (a driver license) one who is a convicted sexual predator, thereby threatening the public safety, even if unintentionally, by heightening the risk sexual predators pose to Florida’s children and families,” Soud wrote. “Second, some may argue (wrongly) that the analysis employed by the majority extends beyond this case and opens the door to others who seek editorial control over information on a driver license that more fits the whim of the licensee. This court should immediately return that door to its closed and locked position.”

The license designation was challenged by Michael Crist, who pleaded no contest in 2002 to charges of attempted sexual battery on a child under the age of 12 and lewd and lascivious molestation, according to Friday’s majority opinion. After serving prison time, he lived in Sumter County and had the sexual-predator designation on his driver’s license.

More than a decade after his release from prison, a probation officer asked to see the license and noticed Crist trying to scratch off what the opinion described as a “happy face emoji” sticker that covered the words SEXUAL PREDATOR. Crist was charged with possession of a driver’s license without the required designation and tampering with evidence, the majority opinion said.

In his dissent, Soud argued that the sexual-predator license requirement is “sufficiently narrowly tailored” to meet an “inherently compelling state interest in protecting the public and minor children from sexual offenses.”

“The statutorily required marking on Crist’s license does not seek to communicate to the public at large or to disinterested passersby,” Soud wrote. “Rather, the marking is viewed only by those who need or desire to view his license for a given purpose. Those who seek to review Crist’s driver license — be they law enforcement authorities or individuals engaged in business or social enterprise — may well need or want to know of Crist’s status as a sexual predator. The marking on his license to provide such awareness is narrowly tailored to accommodate this compelling state interest. Any humiliation Crist claims he suffers when required to produce his driver license neither lessens the state’s interest nor renders the state’s means in this regard insufficiently narrowly tailored.”

Describing the issue as “one of great public importance,” the majority opinion took a step known as certifying the case to the Florida Supreme Court for possible consideration. Also, it placed a stay on Friday’s decision to allow for a Supreme Court review.